MA S TER 

NEGA  TIVE 
NO.  92-80599-21 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR : 


PRESCOTT,  HENRY  W. 


TITLE: 


SOME  PHASES  OF  THE 
RELATION  OF  THOUGHT 

PLACE: 

BERKELEY 

DA  TE : 

[1 907] 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


•-« 


DIDLIOCRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARHFT 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


FIN  PN  PREBCOTT  AND  TW  PHASES  -  Cluster  1  of  1 


h'ecord  aoaea  roQav 


CC:9665   ©LTsam 


\^  I"*^  «  C.  esl.  vl 
PC  SB 

HMD : 
010 


DCF 

INT 


RTYP:a 

%»•  •»••  V.'  * 


STi;p         Fmw 


MS : 


El... :  KA 


MOD : 
E J 1 0 : 
CPIsD 


Ll*f'' 


100    I 


Lseng      I NTs     GPC 
FD: 1907/  REP 

OR:     POL:      DH:      RR: 

NNC""^  IcMMC 

.Prescott ,    HBnry    {/Jash:inq ton  ,  ~  I  d  1  tS 


BNR: 
F I  C  s  0 
FBI;;0 
Vi  wLm  : 


ATC: 
COMnb 
.1 L  C ; 
EHL : 


AD: 05-07-92 
UD: 05-07-92 


.1 1  5  0 


GEN 


BSE 


^■- 


'">  /  r. 


A5    :iO      Some    phases    of    the    relation    of    thought    to    verse    in    Plautus=  I  hCmicrofor 


m 


260 
300 

490   0 


1 ,  =  I  c by    Hf:=}n  r  y    W  .     Pr e s  co 1 1 « 

BerKelev,  "  1  bUn.i  vt?rsi  ty    Fre^ss-- 1  cH  1907.1 


|ji  • 


">  n  >:". ,-  n>  /•  O     —  I  ,-  '->  -r 


^:/-2-^3 


Ic27    cm 


Cal i  for n  i  a .  Un  i  ver  s  i  ty .  Publ i  cat  i  cms .     CIbbb  i  cal  ph  i lo 

Incl(.4des  bi  b.l  :i  oqraphi  ca.l  references « 
6 O 0  1  (')   P 1.  a Li  t us,  T  i  1. 1.(  s  t^l a  c  c  i  u  s  . 
650   0   Latin  lanquaqc?:=  L'dletr  i  cs  and  rhythmics. 


logy 


«   V 


no 


LDG 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


RL.  I M 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM     SIZE: 


Ik  5  "^^  "^"^ 


REDUCTION     RATIO: 


//  K 


IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  mK)    IB     IIB  ^     ^ 

DATE     FILMED: C_i_^^S± INITIALS__2^__*^^J_S.l 

HLMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGE.  CT 


I  fr 


Association  for  Information  and  Image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring.  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

123456789        10 


Nil 


llllllllllllllilll 


'■|''|'|''|'h'l''|'i'|l^^^^ 


Inches 


1.0 


i.i 


1.25 


iiiMHiiiin 


TTT 


W 


11 

Im 


1 4.5 

:■'  ^  t' 

I1& 

'Itt 


2.8 


32 
3.6 

40 


1.4 


2.5 


2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


12       13       14 

iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii 


F  FT 


TTT 


15    mm 


MfiNUFflCTURED   TO  fillM  STRNDfiRDS 
BY  RPPLIED  IMRGE,     INC. 


UNIVERSITY   OF  CALIFORNIA   PUBLICATIONS 

CLASSICAL    PHILOLOGY 

Vol.  I,  No.  7,  pp.  205-262  j^ne    1907 


I 


i 


SOME   PHASES  OF  THE   RELATION  OF 
THOUGHT  TO  VERSE  IN   PLAUTUS 


BY 


HENRY  W.   PRESCOTT 


BERKELEY 
THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


UNIVERSITY    or    CALIFORNIA    PUBLICATIONS 

t»..Ki?*?'~"^lJ^  University  of  California  Publications  are  offered  in  exchange  for  the 
publications  of  learned  societies  and  institutions,  universities  and  libraries.  Complete 
lists  of  al    the  publications  of  the  University  will  be  sent  upon  request.     FoV  simp  I 

S£«'r«Iw  11.^  r«m^^^  address  the  Manager  of  the  University 

Fress,  Berkeley,  California,  U.  S.  A.  All  matter  sent  in  exchange  should  be  addressed 
to  The  Exchange  Department,  University  Library.  Berkeley,  CaUfomia.  USA 

CLASSICAL   PHILOLOGY.-Edward  B.  Clapp,  William  A.  Merrill,  Herbert  C. 

Nutting,  Editors.      Price  per  volume  $2.00.      Volume   I   fin 
progress).  ^ 

No.   I .     Hiatus  in  Greek  Melic  Poetry,  by  Edward  B.  Clapp.  Price,  $0.50 


No.  2.    Studies  in  the  Si-clause,  by  Herbert  C.  Nutting. 

No.  3.    The  Whence  and  Whither  of  the   Modern  Science  of  Lan- 

guage,  by  Benj.  Ide  Wheeler 

No.  4.    On  the   Influence  of   Lucretius  on  Horace,  by  William  A 

Merrill .        .        .       " 

II©,  i.    The  Priests  of  Asklepios  (A  New  Method  of  Dating  Athenian 

Archons),  by  William  Scott  Ferguson  .... 

No.  6.     Horace's  Alcaic  Strophe,  by  Leon  Josiah  Richardson      . 

No.  7.    Some  Phases  of  the  Relation  of  Thought  to  Verse  in  Plautus 
by  Henry  W.  Prescott      .  .  ,  * 


(( 


ii 


(I 


ft 


tt 


K 


.60 

.25 

.25 

.50 
.25 

.50    ) 


The  following  series  in  Graeco-Roman  Archaeology,  Egyptian  Archaeology,  Ameri- 
can  Archaeology  and  Ethnology  and  Anthropological  Memoirs  are  publications  from  the 
Department  of  Anthropology: 

eRAECO-ROMAll  ARCHAEOLOGY.    (Large  Octavo). 

Vol.  I.    The  Tebtunis  Papyri,  Part  1.    Edited  by  Bernard  P.  Grenfell,  Arthur 
S.   Hunt,  and  J.  Gilbart  Smyly.     Pages  690,  Plates  9,  1902 

Vol.  2.    The  Tebtunis  Pap'yri,  Part  2  (in  press).     '        *        '        •    f'"*^^  ^^^'^ 
VuL  3,    The  Tebtunis  Papyri,  Part  3  (in  preparation). 

EGYPTIAN  ARCHAEOLOGY.    (Quarto). 

Vol. J.    The  Hearst  Medical  Papyrus.     Edited  by  G.  A.  Reisner. 

Hieratic  text  in   17  facsimile  plates  in  collotype,  with  introduction  and 
vocabulary,  pages  48.  1905.    (J.  C.  Hinrichs,  Leipzig,  25  Marks) 

Price,  $8.00 

AMSRICAJI  ARCHAEOLOGY  AND   ETHNOLOGY.    (Octavo), 

Vol.1.  1903-1904.  378  pp.,  with  30  plates.  .  .  .  .  Price,  $4  25 
Vol.2.  1904-1907.  392  pp.,  with  21  plates  and  map.  '.  '.  Price]  3  50 
Vol.  3.    The  Morphology  of  the  Hupa  Language,  by  Pliny  Earie  Goddard. 

Pages  344,  June.  1905 .  Pfige,    3.50 

Vol.4.  No.  1.  The  Eariiest  Historical  Relations  between  Mexico  and 
Japan,  by  Zelia  Nuttall.     Pages  47,  April,  1906.      .  Price, 

No.  2.  Contributions  to  the  Physical  Anthropology  of  California, 
by  A.  Hrdlicka.    Pages  16.  Tables  5,  Plates  10,  June,  1906. 

^%l'^^?^''v''^''  ^'^I'^ijS,^^  California,  by  A.  L.'Kroebe/. 
Pages  100,  February,  1907.         .        .        .        .        .        Pfjce 

No.  4.  Indjan  Myths  of  South  Central  California,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber. 
Pages  84,  May  1907.  .....        price 

Vol.  5.  No.  1.  The  Phonology  of  the  Hupa  Language:  Part  I,  The  Indi- 
vidual Sounds,  by  Pliny  Earle  Goddard.  Pages  20,  Plates  8, 
iviarcn,  lifuv.        •••...  Pri<** 

Vol.6.    The  Ethno-Geography  of  the   Porno   Indians,   by  S.  A.   Barrett 

Vol  7.  No.  1.  The  EmeryviUc  Shellmound,  by  Max  Uhle.  Pages  106, 
Plates  12,  June,  1907 ^  Price 


.50 

.75 

1.50 

.75 

.35 


1.25 


V 


UNIVERSITY   OF  CALIFORNIA    PUBLICATIONS 

IN 

CLASSICAL  PHILOLOGY 

Vol.  1,  No.  7.  pp.  205-262.  June  17,  1907 


SOME   PHASES   OF  THE   RELATION   OF 
THOUGHT  TO  VERSE  IN  PLAUTUS 


BY 

HEXRY    W.    PRESCOTT. 

Ill  his  study  of  the  Satiirnian  verse  Leo  has  recently  stated 
his  eoiieeption  of  the  relation  of  thought  to  verse  in  early  Latin 
poetry:  ''  in  early  Latin  verse,"  Leo  says,  with  reference  espec- 
ially to  the  Satnrnian,  *'  verse  and  sentence  are  identical;  art- 
poetry  in  its  beginnings"  (and  he  refers  to  Plautus  as  illustra- 
tive of  the  principle),"  when  sentence-structure  was  developing, 
resisted  this  inherent  requirement  and  limited  itself  to  the  norm 
by  which  words  in  the  sentence  intimately  connected  in  thought 
were  not  separated  by  the  verse  unless  the  separation  was  justi- 
fied by  special  considerations:  externally,  by  reason  of  length,  or 
by  the  colligation  of  Avords  through  alliteration  or  other  means 
of  connection ;  internally,  by  reason  of  emphasis  or  some  stylistic 
effect  of  the  word  thus  separated."^ 

'"  Vers  iind  Satz  fallen  ursprunglich  zusammen;   ...  Die  Kunstpoesie 

hat  ill  ihren  Aiifiingen,  wie  sich  die  Satzbildung  inaehtig  entwickelte,  mit 

dieser    der   Poesie   iiinewohneuden    Forderuiig   gekampft    und   sie   auf   die 

Norm    beschijiiikt,    dass    im    Satze    eng    zusammengehorige    Worter    nicht 

durch   den   Vers   getrennt   werden   durfen,   wenn   sich   nicht   die   Trennung 

dureh  einen  besonderen  Umstand  als  berechtigt   erweist;   aiisserlich   durch 

Lange,  durch  allitterirende  oder  andere  einander  suchende  und  anziehende 

Wortverbindungen,  innerlich  durch  Xachdruck  oder  sonst  stilistische  Absicht 

des  gesonderten  Worts.    So  erscheint  der  Gebrauch  bei  Plautus  ausgebildet. '  * 

Der  saturnische  Vers  14  =  AbhandI.  Getting.  Gesell.   (1905). 

In  1881  Buecheler  reminded  Schoell  that  only  pronominal  adjectives 
were  separated  from  their  nouns  by  the  verse-end,  that  almost  no  other 
adjectives  were  so  treated,  in  the  text  of  Plautus  (Truculentus,  ed. 
Schoell,   praefatio   XLV,   n.    1).     Buecheler    repeated   this   admonition    in 


Unimrsii^  of  CaUfornm  PuMkations.  [Class  Phil.  - 


lie©  has  left  to  otiera  tlie  task  of  testing,  the  validity  of  his  law. 
I  liave  attempted  to  gatlier  and  study  the  evidence  offered  by  one 
group  of  examples  in  Plantw,  tie  cases  in  whicH  adjectival 
words,  whether  ordinaigr  attrihotives,  pronominal  adjectives,  or 
nmnerals,  are  separated  from  their  substantives  by  the  vei-se. 
Ib,,  many  respects  the  study  must  he  descriptive:  the  lack  of 
sim,ilar  studies  m  ■Sfudk,  pietiy,,  and  the  fraginentary  remains  of 
eafller  'tsm  pwtiy,  usually  of  uncertain  metrical  "constitution, 
retard  a  conviiKinc?  account  of  Plautus's  position  in  the  histor^ 
ical  development  of  verse-techniiim.    Nor  will  it  he  just  to  con- 
firm «■■  :i?ifiile  Jm'm.  Ihwuy  mitii  other  phases  of  the  problem  in 
PJautns,  and  the  corresponding  phenomena  in  C^reek  poetry  are 
investigated.    For  the  present,  the  stndy  may  suggest  points 
of  iriew  and  inethoii;  ■«!'  ifpFoach,  which  will  doubtless  need  read- 
justmeiit  as  the  pfoWem,  Is  studied  in  its  larger  aspects. 


JL-m 

Among  the  features  that  Leo  enumerates  as  justifying  separa- 
tiiw  »  length :  this  eltewiiil  may  h«'  n  imttw  of  iijrllaMes,  or  in 
addition  to  syllables  may  include  an  extension  of  thouo-ht.  That 
is,  a  ^nven  word  may  be  lonj;,  or  a  thought-unit  involving  sevenil 
words  may  be  long.  In  either  case,  it  is  not  at  once  clear  that 
length  occasions  the  separation.     If,  however,  ai  appears  to  he 

Rh.  Mus.  41  (1887)  312.  In  l<^l>n  Appulm  publishiMl  his  dissertation- 
Qiiaestiones  Plautinae.  Quae  ratiunes  inter  versus  siiitrul,.s  sentei.tias<,ue 
intereedant  Plauti  exemplo  comprobatur  (Marl.nr^r).  IntcHrpretative 
analysis  was  impossible  in  this  attempt  to  cover  a  lar^ro  fioM  within  tilt 
compass  of  a  doctor's  dissertation. 

Xorden  summarizes  the   usa^^e  of  Vergil   in  Aeneis  Buch  A'l,  390-391. 
For   references   to   studies   of   the   general   question    of   the   eolh.eation    of 
words,  as  well  as  of  the  special  question  under  eonsideratiou.  ef.  the  same 
work  382  n.  1,  and  the  same  author's  Die  antike  Kunstprosa  I  68  n.  1. 
^     In  the  present  paper  the  song-measures  are  excluded;  I  have  not  know- 
ingly included  examples  from   such  passages  except   for  conq.arative   pur- 
poses, and  then  their  provenance  is  stated.     I  may  be  open  to  critids.n  in 
not  dividing  the  material  with  reference  to  the  metre  of  the  verses  con- 
cerned;   but   the  results  show  no  important   differences   between   the   tech- 
nique   of   the   iambic   and   trochaic    verses,    or   of   the   shorter   a.ul    longer 
verses,  except  such  as  may  more  conveniently  be  described  parenthetieallv 
and  a  metrical  classification  interferes  with  clearness  of  presentation  '  ' 


Vol.  1]       Frcscott.— Thought  and  Verse  in  Plaiitus. 


207 


the  case,-  words  of  five  or  more  syllables  that  are  metrically  suit- 
able re*?nlarly  tend  to  the  end  of  the  verse,  or  less  frequently  to 
the  be^nnning,  it  follows  that,  if  such  a  word  is  a  substantive  or 
adjective,  the  difiieulties  in  combining  the  two  members  of  the 
pair  in  one  verse  are  much  greater  than  they  otherwise  would  be. 
And  similarly,  a  thought-unit  consisting  of  a  substantive  and 
several  adjectives,  wherever  they  may  be  disposed  in  the  verse, 
will  by  reason  of  the  nuniber  of  syllables,  easily  overflow  into 
the  next  verse. 

In  a  thorough  treatment  of  Leo's  theory  predicative  expres- 
sions should  'he  inclnded.  The  consciousness  of  verse-unity 
could  not  be  better  illustrated  than  in  these  two  couplets: 

isqiie  Mc  compressit  virginem  adnleseentuhis 
(vi),  viinileiitilS,  nwlta  nocte,  in  via.     (Cist.  158) 

quom  hasce  herbas  huius  modi  in   suom  alvom  congerunt 
formidulosas  dictu,  non  essu  modo.      (Ps.   823) 

But  such  cases  of  predicative  expressions,  involving  long  words, 
are  apart  from  our  immediate  purpose.  There  are,  however,  a 
few  cases  of  adjectives  following  their  substantives  (either  adjec- 
tive or  substantive  is  of  great  length)  and  not  so  clearly  pre- 
dicative. Tlieir  position  makes  it  possible  that  they  amplify  the 
meaning,  in  which  case  this  amplifying  force  as  well  as  length 
justify  the  separation.  Most  of  these  adjectives  are  derived 
from  proper  nouns ;  and  since  in  almost  all  cases  the  adjectives 
stand  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse  it  is  significant  to 
note  that  in  Oscan  and  Umbrian  proper  adjectives  usually  follow 
their  nouns  :^ 

Philoi)olemum  vivom,  salvom  et  sospitein 
vidi  in  publica  celoce,  ibidemque  ilium  aduleseentulum 
Aleum  una  et  tuom  Stalagmum  servom  (Capt.  873) 


*In  the  Mostellaria,  for  example,  out  of  90  cases  of  words  of  five  or 
more  syllables,  two-thirds  stand  at  the  end  of  a  verse;  of  the  remain- 
ing third  all  but  two  are  metrically  impossible  at  the  end.  On  the  other 
hand  words  of  four  syllables  are  freely  dis7)0sed  in  the  interior  of  the 
verse.  Five  sjilables  is,  therefore,  assumed  to  be  the  minimum  of  length 
which  may  be  regarded  as  offering  difficulty. 

'Nilsson,  de  collocatione  pron.  adj.  apud  Plautum  et  Terentium 
10  =  Lunds  Universitets  Ars-skrift  37  (1901). 


208 


University  of  Calif  or  nia  PubliemMmis.   [Class  Phil. 


-non  ego  te  ad  ilium  «lueo  dentatum  virum 
Macedoniensem,  qui  te  nunc  flentem  facit:    (Ps.  1040) 

quein    propter,   o   mea   vita?— propter    niilitem 
Babyloniensem,  qui  quasi  uxorem  sibi  (True.  391) 

8ed  illi  patruo  huius  qui  vivit  senex 
Carthaginiensi  duae  fuere  fdiae:    (Poen.  83) 

These  examples  are  of  somewhat  different  value.     In  the  first 
case,  the  len<?th  of  aduhsnutulum  and  its  consequent  position 
(of  fifteen  occurrences  of  the  word  thirteen  are  at  the  end  of  the 
verse)  are  the  controlling  factors:  Aleinn  is  no  more  amplifying 
than  in  vs.  169  of  the  same  play    {)iam  cecum   hie  eaptivom 
adulcsecntcm    (intus)    Aleum,    \    prognatum    gcncrc   summo   ct 
summis  ditiis)  where  the  adjective  is  kept  in  the  same  verse  with 
its  shorter  noun.     The  next  two  examples  are  alike  in  having  the 
se[)arated  adjective  followed  hy  the  caesural  pause  and  an  ex- 
planatory (/^//-clause.*     In  the  last  exanipl(%  too,  we  have  the 
caesural   i)ause.     Plautine  usage  of  these  adjectives  points  to 
length  as  the  influential  factor.     Carthaginicnsis  occurs  only  at 
the  beginning  of  the  verse  (Poen.  50,  84,  963,  997,  1377)   with 
one  exception    (1124).     Babijlonicnsis  is  less  constant:  at   the 
beginning  in  True.  84,  penultimate  word  in  True.  203   (here, 
however,  iambic  septenarius;  in  the  other  cases,  senarii)  ;  in  all 
three  cases  the  same  phrase  occurs.     So  we  get  mil  it  em  \  Baby 
lonienscm   (391),  |  Babglonienscm  militcm   (84),  Babglonicnsis 
miles  I  (203).     It  is  clear  that  length  and  metrical  conditions  are 
potent.     Macedouiensis  does  not  occur  again:  Maecdoniiis  takes 
its  place  (Ps.  51,  346,  616,  1090,  1152,  1162),  and  in  all  the 
cases  except  one  (346)   it  stands  at  the  end,  different  metrical 
constitution  making  it  convenient  in  that  position:  in  all  the 
cases  of  Macedoniiis,  however,  separation  is  avoided  except  in  the 
following  couplet : 

*Cf.  True.  83: 

quern  antehac  odiosum  sibi  esse  meniorabat  mala, 
Babylonicnsem  militem:  is  nunc  dicitur 
venturus  peregre: 

here  the  adjective  is  not  separated,  and  a  demonstrative  resumes  the  de- 
scription. For  relative  clauses  defining  separated  adjectives  cf.  Seymour, 
Harv.  Stud.  Ill  (1892)  98  fif.,  and  for  explanatory  clauses  after  a  separated 
demonstrative  in  Plant  us  cf.  below,  p.  252. 


Vol.  1]       Preseott. — Thought  and   Verse  in  Plautus. 


209 


Pseudolus  tuos  allegavit  hunc,  quasi  a  Maeedonio 
milite  esset.     (Ps.  1162) 

In  this  case  the  adjective  precedes,  and  the  unity  of  thought  is 
seriously  affected.  Such  a  case  strengthens  our  feeling  that  in 
the  examples  in  which  the  adjective  follows  its  noun,  it  is  not  so 
much  the  amplifying  force,  which  is  difficult  to  prove,  as  it  is  the 
length  that  conduces  to  separation. 

In  a  few  cases  of  ordinary  attributives,  however,  the  thought, 
quite  as  much  as  the  length,  justifies  the  separation: 

quom  sexaginta  milia  hominum  uno  die 
voJatieorum   manibus   occidi   meis.      (Poen.   472) 

The  swaggering  antithesis  of  60,000  and  a  single  day^  occupies 
the  first  verse,  and  crowds  out  volaticorum;  but  this  adjective  is 
in  itself  of  a  length  that  makes  it  most  adaptable  to  the  extremes 
of  the  verse — so  in  the  conversation  that  follows  our  passage: 

volaticorum  hominum? — ita  dico  quidem. 

— an,   opsecro,   usquam   sunt   homines   volaticii 

Plautus  is  no  slave  to  such  external  conditions,  however,  for  the 
adjective  by  its  separation  and  prominence  produces  the  climax 
of  surprising  absurdity  after  the  antithesis  of  the  preceding 
verse.  Nor  is  it  far-fetched  to  suggest  that  the  juxtaposition  of 
volaticorum  and  manibus,  "  wings  "  and  '*  hands,"  is  not  acci- 
dental. In  both  of  the  following  cases  the  rest  of  the  second 
verse  is  an  explanation  of  the  separated  adjective  or  substan- 
tive,*' which  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse  before 
a  strong  pause: 

ut  in  ocellis  hilaritudo  est,  heia,  corpus  cuius  modi, 

subvolturium— illud   quidem,    subaquilum   volui   dicere.      (Rud.    421) 

novi,  Neptunus  ita  solet,  quamvis  fastidiosus^ 

aedilis  est;  si  quae  improbae  sunt  merces,  iactat  omnis.     (Rud.  372) 


» Cf .  Aul.  70,  Aul.  frag.  3. 

•Leo,  Analecta  Plautina:  de  figuris  sermonis  II  31,  refers  to  the  word- 
play in  subtoiturium— ro/ui.  For  a  slightly  different  explanation  of  a 
separated  adjective  cf.  below,  p.  224.  More  like  our  present  example,  but 
with  a  play  on  verbs,  is  Frivolaria,  frag.  8. 

'  In  the  only  other  occurrence  of  the  adjective,  fastidiosus  is  in  the  same 
position   (M.  G.  1233). 


210 


Vniversitij  of  California  VulAivations.   [<'lass  Phii. 


Vol.  1]       Prcscott. — ThouyJtt   and   Verse   in   Plautus. 


211 


There  may  be  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
second  example:  perhaps  the  second  verse  explains  fasticliosus 
rather  than  aedilis,  Bnt  in  any  ease  acdilis  comes  in  as  a  sur- 
prise  and,  as  in  the  fii-st  example,  the  separation  and  the  position 
of  the  nnexp(H'ted  idea  enhance  the  effect. 

It  is,  of  course,  true  that  the  separation  seems  more  violent  in 
the  second  case  than  in  tlie  first  because  the  adjective  precedes. 
Similarly  in  these  examples: 

quo  niodo  me  lii.los  focisti  de  ilia  coii.lueticia 

fiiHcinaf— factum   herWe  vero,  et   rei-te  factu.n   iihlln..      ( Kp.   7o(i) 

volo  tieliuli  illuiK-,  (iuin  cuni  hac   usuraria 
uxore  imiic   mihi   morigero.      (Ainpli.   i)80) 

In  botli  of  tlu-sf  the  Ion-  proiMisitionnl  phrase,  quite  apart  from 
the  long  adjective,  makes  separation  almost  inevitable.'  Without 
a  preposition  the  accusative  ease  Jidlcinam-comhulkiam  is  ae- 
commoflated  in  a  single  verse  in  Ep.  313;  whereas  the  same 
phrase  with  nxoiatia  escapes  separation  only  l.y  oecupyinir  iin 
entire  verse: 

* 

cum   Alcumena    iixore    iisnraria.      (Anipli.    49S) 

The  siornificant  fact  is  that  in  all  the  few  occurrences  of  condueti- 
cia  and  Msuraria  the  adjectives  stand  at  the  end  of  the  verse 
(Cure.  382,  True.  72).  The  same  position  is  the  re-ular  habitat 
of  praesentarins,  so  that  the  following  separation  may  in  large 
measure  be  referred  to  the  length  of  the  adjective : 

vendidit  tuos  natus  aedis.—perii.— praoscntariis 

argenti  minis  numeratis.— quot/— quadraginta.— oceidi.      (Trin.    1081) 

(For  other  cases  of  this  adjective  at  the  end,  Most.  361,  913, 
Poen.  705,  793.)  The  explosive  alliteration  in  the  first  verse 
may,  from  Leo's  standpoint,  partially  reestablish  the  unity  of 
that  verse:  indeed,  from  an  English  point  of  view  the  idea  **cash 
down''  is  a  separable  idea,«  but  we  may  not  safely  attribute  it 
tc  praesentarius. 

The  fact  that  argenii  minis  constitutes  an  almost  inseparable 


■  The  alliteration  in  Ep.  707  is  also  to  be  noted. 
•Cf.  muiuosy  below,  p.  234. 


unit  (usually  at  the  end  or  beginning  of  a  verse)  adds  to  the 
difficulty.  This  brings  us  to  examples  of  long  thought-units. 
Such  thought-units  may  be  of  two  sorts :  a  substantive  attended 
by  a  succession  of  adjectives  of  eciual  value,  e.  g.  '*a  long,  lean, 
rascally,  devil  of  a  fellow  "  ;  or  a  substantive  accompanied  by 
attributive  modifiers  of  unequal  value,  e.  g.  *'my  own  twin 
sister."  Our  author  is  fond  of  billingsgate,  and  offei's  a  richer 
store  of  the  first  variety  of  compounds  than  we  may  quote.  In 
general  it  may  be  said  that  such  a  succession  of  adjectives  is 
usually  so  disposed  as  to  accentuate  the  unity  of  the  verses :  the 
substantive  usually  precedes  or  is  embraced  between  groups  of 
attributives ;  the  thought  is  in  a  measure  complete,  and  the  vir- 
tues or  vices  or  indifferent  qualities  either  run  over  into  several 
verses  or  occasionally  are  bound  within  a  single  verse,  in  either 
case  without  serious  disturbance  of  verse-unity.  A  few  examples 
will  illustrate  these  characteristics: 

nisi  niilii  siipplicium  virgeum  (MSS.  virgarum)  de  te  datur 
longuni,  diutinunique,  a  mane  ad  vesperum.     (M.  G.  502) 

Stat  propter  virum 
fortem  atque  fortunatum  et  forma  regia.     (M.  G.  9,  cf.  56-57) 

ecquem 
recalvom  ad  Silanum  senem,  statutum,  ventriosum, 
tortis  superciliis,  contracta  fronte,  fraudulentum, 
deoriim  odium  atque  hominum,  malum,  mali  viti  probrique  plenum, 
qui  dueeret  mulierculas  duas  secum  satis  venustasi     (Rud.  316) 

For  other  examples,  Bacch.  280  (if  Leo's  strigosum  is  accepted), 
Cas.  767,  Men.  402,  487,  M.  G.  88,  Ps.  724,  974,  Rud.  125,  313, 
True.  287.  In  the  examples  quoted  other  obvious  features  will 
be  noticed :  in  the  first,  intensification  of  one  idea  in  one  verse ; 
in  the  second,  initial  rhyme.  There  are  a  few  cases  of  a  succes- 
sion of  two  or  three  adjectives  in  which  the  unity  is  not  so 
obvious : 

ut  aliquem  hominem  strenuom 
benevolentem  adducerem  ad  te.     (Ps.  697) 

post  altrinsecust  securicula  ancipes,  itidem  aurea 
litterata:  ibi  matris  nomen  in  securiculast.'"     (Rud.  1158) 


"  Cf.  Rud.  478,  1156-1157. 


/ 


212 


University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 


Vol.  1]       Prcscott.— Thought   and   Virsc   in   Plautus. 


213 


ibi  nunc  statuam  volt  dare  aumini 
solidam"  faciundam  ex  aiiro  Philippo,   (Cure.  439) 

In  all  of  those  the  noun  and  one  adjective  (or  two)  stand  in  the 
first  verse  so  that  the  thon-ht  is  practically  complete;  bcnevolen- 
tern,  and  aurra  (as  we  shall  see  presently),  are  metrically  con- 
venient in  the  places  which  they  occupy;  the  separated  adjectives 
all  stand  at  the  beginnincrs  of  their  respective  verses  and  are 
not  without  emphasis;  it  is  also  to  he  noticed  that  littcrata  is 
explained  in  the  rest  of  the  verse. 

Of  the  second  variety  of  thought-urnts,  two  occur  with  sufficient 
frequency  to  be  of  sicrnificance.  These  are  the  expressions  for 
own  twin  sister,  brother,  .son,-  often  accompanied  bv  a  pleo- 
nastic numeral  when  the  expression  is  in  the  plural;' and  the 
phra.se  for  a  sum  of  money  in  which  nunnni  aurei  Philippi  in 
various  arrantrements,  with  an  aceompanyin-  numeral  or  further 
attribute,  makes  an  elaborate  complex.  This  latter  phrase  is 
usually  from  ei-ht  to  thirteen  syllables  in  extent,  and  on  five 
occasions  the  lonirer  varieties  run  over  into  a  .second  verse  :^= 

sunt  tilti   intuM  aun-i 
tri>eenti  nunnni   Philippi /-sc^seenti  qu.Mp,,..      (IN.en.   Km) 

qui  inihi  niillo  numniuni  eredcret 
I'liiiippuni,     (Trin.  954) 

atcpie  etiam  Philippuni,  nunieratum  illius  in  niensji  uv.um 
niilie  nuniniuni.     (Trin.  965) 

hie  sunt  numerati  aurei 
tiwenti  nunnni  qui  vooantur  Philippei.      (Poen.   71.3) 

nam  ducentis  aureis 
Pliilippis  redenii  vitam  ex  flagitio  tuuni.     (FJaeeh.  1010) 

On  the  contrary,  in  a  large  majority  of  cases  similar  varieties 
of  the  same  phrase,  not  always  with  aureus,  are  included  in  a 

I'oo   rj"''""''  ^"'  ^^^'  ^^''^''  ^^^^  ^^^'  ^^-  934,  1026,  Poen.  670 
<32,  Trin.  152,  959,  1158.'^ 

r.J7^'  T^^''^  f  /aoiiiNc/am  gives  solUlum  predicative  force  in  our 
passage:  cf.  Cicero,  de  div.  I,  24,  48. 

"In  Pers.  438  probi  numerati  are  probably  amplifying,  as  I^o  brings 
out  m  his  punctuation:  cf.  Pers.  526.  i      .^     g,  as  j^o  Dnngs 

seprratiJn   rcf  'ftfth''''  "  "/  f  *'^^  ^'^^"^  ^^^'^  ^^«  -^  -o^^^t 
Kritik  u.  Erklarung  des  Plautus  85  if.,  Brix  on  Trin.  844).     At  least  in 


There  are  a  dozen  instances  of  the  first  phrase,  includini?  more 
than  six  syllables,  and  of  these  only  two  escape  into  a  second 
verse;  these  two  are  of  eleven  and  ten  .svllables: 

geniinam  gernianan]  nioam 
hie  sororem  esse  indandivi:  eani  voni  quaesituni.     (M.  G.  441) 

spes  niihi  est  vos  inventuruni  f  rat  res  gernianos  duos 
geniinos,  una  niatre  natos  et  patre  uno  uno  die.     (Men.  1102) 

The  second  of  these  (and  possibly  the  first^*)  is  only  apparent 
separation:  gcminos  is  followed  by  a  sense-pause  which  empha- 
sizes the  idea  as  amplifyinor,  and  the  elaboration  of  the  same 
idea  in  the  rest  of  the  same  verse  «:ives  a  distinct  unity  to  that 
verse.  Indeed,  (jcminus  is  elsewhere  in  the  same  play  a  sub- 
stantive: :\ren.  26,  40,  ^^S,  69,  and  if  the  prologue  is  of  dubious 
authorship  in  parts,  at  least  once  in  the  play  itself,  vs.  1120. 
In  nine  cases  long  forms  of  this  complex  are  confined  to  a  single 
verse:  Amph.  480,  cf.  1070,  Men.  18,  232,  1082,  1125,  M.  G.  238, 
383,  391,  717.  To  be  sure,  our  impression  that  this  situation 
points  to  a  sensitiveness  to  verse-unity  is  momentarily  disturbed 
when  we  find  a  much  shorter  form  of  the  same  phrase  running 

over : 

sicut  sorer 
eius  hue  geniina  veuit  Ephesum  et  mater  accersuutque  earn.     (M.  G.  974) 

Only  momentarily,  for  again  gcmina  may  be  substantival; 
Palaestrio  may  be   working   upon   the   soldier  very  tactfully; 

the  separation  of  nummus  Philippus,  the  use  of  Philippus  alone,  and  the 
examples  above  (Trin.  954,  965,  with  qui  vocantur  Philippei  in  Poen.  714), 
suggest  that  the  words  are  separable,  either  one  amplifying  the  other. 
When  aureus  (convenient  at  the  verse-end,  cf.  above  and  As.  153,  Bacch. 
230,  590,  934,  Trin.  1139)  is  a  part  of  the  phrase,  the  separation  seems 
more  violent;  if,  however,  Bentley's  emendation  of  Bacch.  230  is  right, 
there  would  be  some  evidence  of  a  substantival  aureus,  similar  to  the  usage 
of  later  times;  and  one  should  compare  the  usage  of  xp^'f^ovg  as  a  substantive 
without  crari/p  in  the  fragments  of  Greek  comedy:  Jacobi,  comicae  dictionis 
index  s.  v.  XP^^^^'  The  separation  of  aureus  is  no  more  than  that  of  a 
material  genitive  as  in  Hipponax,  22,  4: 

KiiL  aafi.3a/AaKa  KaoKepiaKa  kciI  xp^'<^ov 
ararf/fM.^  e^ijKovTa  tovtI/mv  toIxov, 

But  Plautus  does  not  separate  the  genitive  auri  in  this  phrase. 

"  The   resumptive   eani  in   the   same   verse   with   sororem   may   help   to 
strengthen  the  unity  of  the  verse. 


''J 


214 


Fmrrrsiti/  of  California  PahJirafions.    [Olass  Phil. 


Vol.  1]       rnsiott. — Thomjht   and   Verse   in   Plautus. 


215 


slowly  iinloadinj^  his  ammunition,  **a  si.ster,  her  twin.''  (So, 
perhaps,  also  in  vss.  473  474.)  And  Leo  micrht  add  that  the 
alliteration  in  siciif  soror  reasserts  the  unity  of  the  first  verse.^^ 

II. 

In  so  far  as  he  overeomc^s  the  obstaele  offered  by  len^jth  in  a 
large  majority  of  eases,  Plautus  may  be  said  to  show  respeet  for 
the  integrity  of  the  verse.  But  the  poet's  aversion  to  separation 
or  his  indifference  to  ver.se-unity  is  best  tested  by  conditions  in 
which  there  are  no  obstacles  in  the  leni,4h  of  words  or  thou<rhts. 
Some  general  considerations  will  help  us  to  ai)preciate  the  ex- 
amples. 

In  the  later  Republican  prose  the  substantive  is  often  sepa- 
rated from  its  attributive  by  intervening  words,  and  much  more 
frequently  in  poetry;  so  far  as  I  know,  no  effort  has  been  made 
to  discover  whether  such  separation  is  regulated  by  any  laws  or 
not^" — whether,  for  example,  certain  attributives  are  more  separ- 
able than  others,  whether  the  intervening  words  are  of  some 
special  character,  etc.  Xorden^"  has  already  pointed  out  that 
such  separation  in  early  Latin  prose  is,  as  regards  the  number 
and  the  nature  of  the  intervening  words,  subject  to  limitations. 
Altenburg'^  has  collected  the  material:  usually  only  one  word 
intervenes,  or  if  more,  they  constitute  a  unit  of  thought.  From 
our  present  point  of  view  we  should  like  to  know  whether  the 
attributives  themselves  show  degrees  of  separability:  whether, 

"Under  the  heatl  of  long  thought-units  should  come  Ep.  559,  in  which 
the  genitive  and  the  adjectives  constitute  an  inseparable  compound  and 
perhaps  account  for  the  escape  of  muUercm: 

accipe,    aenimnoaam    et    miseriarum    compotem 
mulierem  retines. 

The  same  would  apply  to  Nonius's  reading  aerumnarum. 

"  Even  the  interpretation  of  the  material  under  discussion  in  this  paper 
would  be  facilitated  by  a  study  of  the  collocation  of  adjective  and  sub- 
stantive within  the  verse,  quite  apart  from  the  question  of  separation  by 
the  verse. 

"  Die  antike  Kunstprosa  I  179-180,  and  180  n.  2. 

"De  sermone  pedestri  Italorum  vetustis8imo  =  JHB.  Supplbd.  24  (1898) 
523  ff. 


for  example,  the  separation  of  certain  pronominal  adjectives 
does  not  appear  earlier  than  that  of  ordinary  attributives. 
Perhaps  the  material  is  too  scanty  to  lead  to  convincing  gener- 
alization; tne  fact  that  in  Oscan  the  relative  adjective  is  very 
regularly  separated  from  its  noun  and  stands  at  the  opposite 
extreme  of  the  clause  lends  significance  to  a  similar  situation  in 
Plautus.^^  Such  observations  as  Kaibel  makes  in  his  study  of 
Aristotle's  Athenian  Constitution-^  would  affect  our  interpreta- 
tion of  many  exami)les  if  early  Latin  prose  showed  similar  char- 
acteristics: he  notes  that  certain  pronominal  adjectives  are 
separated  from  their  substantives  with  greater  frequency  and 
by  more  intervening  words  than  ordinary  attributives;  he  men- 
tions in  the  order  of  such  frequency  o'tos,  7ras,  oA.os,  oAAot,  the 
relative,  too-ovto^.  oo-o?,  ovScts,  o  uitos,  tU  ;  but  the  last  seven  are 
naturally  represented  only  by  one  or  two  examples;  he  also  re- 
fers to  numerals,  but  without  mentioning  the  frequency  of 
s(  paration  in  such  cases.  Altenburg's  examples  show  that  some 
of  the  corresponding  words  in  Latin  are  separated  in  early 
prose.-^  When  we  add  thereto  that  in  Plautus,  quite  apart 
from  the  question  of  separation  within  the  verse,  the  cases  of 
separation  by  the  verse  and,  often,  by  intervening  words  as  well, 
show  a  relatively  large  number  of  pronominal  adjectives  and 
numerals,  we  may  suspect  that  some  influence  made  the  disturb- 
ance of  verse-unity  either  less  violent  or  more  imperative  than 
it  appears  to  us  and  than  it  perhaps  w^as  in  the  case  of  ordinary 
attributives:  in  Plautus  20  per  cent,  of  the  cases  of  separation 
by  the  verse-end  are  pronominal  adjectives,  25  per  cent,  posses- 
sive adjectives,  15  per  cent,  numerals.  That  is,  more  than  half 
are  pronominal  words  and  numerals. 

A  step  towards  the  explanation  of  some  of  these  phenomena 
has  been  taken  by  Wackernagel,--  though  without  reference  to 
the  matter  of  verse-unity.  His  investigations  in  Indogermanic 
languages,  especially  Greek  and  Latin,  bring  to  light  survivals 

"Altenburg,  1.  c.  530;  Norden,  1.  c.  I  181  n.  1. 
^  Stil  u.  Text  der  UoXiTeia  'AOr/vaiuv  des  Aristoteles  99  ff. 
^  For  example,  ceteri,  omnes,  numerals  including  nullus,  alter,  tantus, 
qui  (rel.),  quia  (indef.). 

="  Indog.  Forsch.  I  406  ff.  Cf .  Delbruck,  Syntakt.  Forsch.  Ill  47. 


216 


Universif}/  of  CnVtforma  Puh1irntio})s.   [<^lass  Phil. 


of  a  law  by  which  short  enclitic  words  tend  to  the  beirinnin^  of 
a  sentence,  iisvially  to  the  second  place.  Pronominal  words  are 
often  enclitics,  and  some  pronominal  adjectives  are  directly 
affected  by  this  law.  Others  are  indirectly  affected;  for  the  law 
of  pronominal  attraction,  combined  with  Wackernajrel's  law, 
will  sometimes  brinjr  pronominal  words  that  may  or  may  not  be 
enclitics  to  at  least  the  third  place  in  the  sentence.  Such  laws 
have  precedence  of  the  natural  attraction  of  the  adjective  to  its 
substantive. 

A  few  other  laws  affect  the  collocation  of  words  so  fundannni- 
tally  that  verse-unity  must  waive  its  claims,  whenever  it  con- 
flicts. Words  of  the  same  catcffory  are  attracted  to  one  another. 
Certain  fornudas  exist  for  the  expression  of  certain  ideas,  e.  pr.. 
of  oaths,  ({roups  of  words  in  Plautus  have  been  studied  and 
pwiiliarities  of  collocation  discovered,  ^fost  of  these  conditions 
reflect  the  usa^'c  of  ordinary  speech.  But  there  are  other  arti- 
ficial combinations — whether  due  to  the  influence  of  rhetoric  or 
not  we  may  not  always  say — resultinsr  often  in  the  interlocking 
of  words  and  the  conserpient  se|)aration  of  words  that  are  syn- 
tactically connected.  All  such  factors  nuist  be  appreciated. 
Apparent  violation  of  verse-uni4v  mav  be  onlv  conservation  of 
these  natural  or  artificial  collocations.-^ 

Some  of  these  freneral  considerations  account  for  the  separate 
treatment  of  ordinary-  attributives,  possessive  adjectives,  other 
pronominal  adjectives,  and  numerals.  All  of  them  will  make 
more  intelli^^ible  the  discussion  of  individual  passa^fes. 

In  this  discussion  I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  represent- 
ing the  attendant  features  to  be  the  cause  of  separation  or  atone- 
ment for  separation ;  that  would  be  betrjrincr  an  important  ques- 
tion. In  viewing  the  problem  of  verse-unity  with  reference  to 
Leo's  theor>%  it  is  apparent  that  the  cases  of  separation  are  often 
attended  by  such  features  as  Leo  regards  to  be  justifications  for 


2S 


On  the  various  matters  here  briefly  referred  to  of.  Langen,  Rh.  Mus. 
12  (1857)  426  ff.;  Kellerhof,  de  collocatione  verborum  Plaiitina  =  Stude- 
mund-Stud.  II  49  ff. ;  Kjiinpf,  de  prononiiniim  personalium  iisu  et  collo- 
catione ap.  poet,  scaen.  Rom.  16  flf.  =  Berliner  Stiidien  III  (1886);  Leo, 
Bemerkungen  iiber  plautinische  Wortstellungen  u.  Wortgruppen  =  Xach- 
richt.  Gotting.  Gesell.  (1895)  416,  432-433  j  Xorden,  Aeneis  Buch  VI,  386. 


Vol.  1]       Prcscott.—r nought  and  Verse   in   Plautus. 


217 


separation:  a  descriptive  paper  notes  the  appearance  of  such 
features.  Quite  apart  from  this  descriptive  treatment  is  the 
important  question  which  Leo's  theory  involves,  namely:  is 
Plautus,  under  the  influence  of  earlier  Latin  poetry,  conscious 
of  verse-unity  in  the  sense  that  all  cases  of  separation  must  be 
justified  by  special  considerations?  Granting  that  these  fea- 
tures attend  separation,  there  is  the  further  question :  may  any 
or  all  of  these  be  proved  to  be  necessarily  involved  in  the  relation 
of  thought  to  verse?  For  example,  alliteration  is  inherent  in 
Plautus 's  style:  may  not  its  appearance  have  nothing  to  do  with 
verse-unity?-*  Furthermore,  granting  that  Plautus  is  conscious 
of  the  individuality  of  each  verse,  which  may  hardly  be  denied, 
such  consciousness  may  arise  in  one  of  several  ways :  a  poet  may 
be  luider  the  influence  of  a  primitive  form  of  verse  in  which 
verse  and  sentence  are  identical — so  Plautus  in  Leo's  theory;  or 
he  may  be  far  removed  from  any  such  influence  and  yet  pre- 
serve the  unity  of  the  verse — which  is  not  necessarily  lost  sight 
of  entirely  even  in  advanced  stages  of  verse-development — either 
for  the  purpose  of  bringing  into  relief  units  of  thought,  or  as  a 
concession  to  an  artificial  tendency  of  his  time.-^  On  a  priori 
grounds  Plautus 's  attitude  towards  verse-unity  may  well  be  sus- 
pected of  being  affected  by  the  Saturnian  verse;  he  is,  however, 
adapting  Greek  comedies,  and  the  verse-technique  of  his  Greek 
sources  had  reached  a  much  higher  point  than  contemporary 
Latin  verse.  This  counter-influence  must  be  reckoned  with  in 
any  a  priori  reasoning.  Leo  would  be  the  first  to  recognize  the 
validity  of  this  contention. 

None  of  these  important  questions  is  begged  in  the  following 
descriptive  treatment.  Some  of  them  may  be  considered  by  way 
of  conclusion,  but  many  of  them  cannot  be  settled  in  a  study  of 
a  few  phases  of  verse-unity.  The  division  of  adjectives  is  but  a 
small  part  of  word-division,  and  word-division  is  but  a  part  of 


-*  Of  course  the  fact  that  alliterative  groups  are  usually  limited  to 
a  single  verse  in  itself  shows  a  consciousness  of  verse-unity.  The  question 
at  issue  is  whether  a  noun  or  adjective  is  separated  for  the  purpose  of 
bringing  it  into  an  alliterative  group. 

^  Such  an  artificial  preservation  of  unity  appears  in  Bion:  cf.  Wilamo- 
witz,  Adonis  38-39. 


218 


rnivcr.sifi/  of  California  riiblkatious.    [Class  Phil. 


a  larger  topic  which  includes  the  division  of  the  larj^'er  units  of 
thought,  phrases  and  clauses. 


III. 

When  an  attributive  follows  its  substantive  it  is  often  possible 

that  the  adjective  is  ani|)lifyinff ;  each  case  must  be  interpreted 

with  reference  to  the  context,  but  the  mere  possibility  justifies 

us  in  distinjruishin^'  between  (a)  adjectives  that  follow,  and  (7>) 

those    that    precede    their   substantives.     Further    classification 

might  be  desirable,  for  example,  with  reference  to  whether  or 

not  words  intervene  between  the  adjective  and  noun ;  but  this 

woidd  confuse  the  discussion.     I  have  persuaded  myself  from 

an  inspection  of  the  Mostellaria  that  the  number  and  the  nature 

of  the  w^ords  that  intervene  between  adjective  and  noun  within 

the  verse  are  the  same  in  the  corresponding  situation  when  a 

verse-end  also  intervenes.     In  some  cases  it  may  well  be  argued 

that  verse-unity  w^as  sacrificed   to  the   normal   collocation   of 

words.     The   equally    important   question    whether   within    the 

verse  the  collocation   of  adjective   and   noun   and   interveninc* 

words  is  ever  abnormal  for  the  sake  of  preserving  verse-unity  is 

not  within  the  limits  of  this  paper. 

(a) 
It  is  not  easy  to  draw  a  line  between  purely  predicative  and 
amplifying  adjectives.     The  former,  as  we  saw  in  examples  of 
long  adjectives,  are  often  set  off  in  a  separate  verse;  many  are 
participial: 

is  ex  se  hiinc  reliqiiit  qui  hie  nunc  habitat  filium 
pariter  nioratum  ut  pater  avosque  huius  fuit.     (Aul.  21) 

cur  inclementer  dicis  lepidis  litteris 

lepiilis  tabellis  lepida  conscript  is  nianu?     (Ps.  27) 

vilieus  is  cum  corona,  candide 

vestitus,  lautus,  exornatusijue  ambulat.     (Cas.  707) 

Somewhat  different  in  effect,  but  equally  separable  are  these 
participial  adjectives: 

miles  lenoni  Ballioni  epistulani 

conscriptam  niittit  Polyniaehaeroplagides,  (Ps.  998) 


Vol.  1]       Frcscott.— Thought   and  Verse   in  Plautiis. 


219 


hominem  cum  ornamentis  omnibus 
exoruatum  adducite  ad  me  iam  ad  trapezitam  Aeschinum.     (Ps.   756) 

et  tu  gnatam  tuam 
ornatam  adduce  lepide  in  peregrinum  niodum.     (Pers.  157) 

''Writes  and  sends,''  ''dress  up  and  bring''  may  suggest  the 
effect  of  such  separation.  Such  examples,  in  which  the  verbal 
element  is  prominent,  are  hardly  within  the  scope  of  this  paper.^* 
I  take  it  that  the  following  group  of  cases  will  not  be  regarded 
as  illustrating  real  separation ;  predicative  or  amplifying  as  you 
please,  the  suggestion  of  physical  or  emotional  distress  is  an 
afterthought,  which  separation  by  the  verse-end  and  intervening 
words,  and  position  in  close  connection  with  caesura  or  diaeresis 
accentuate : 

item  parasiti  rebus  prolatis  latent 

in  occulto  miseri,  victitant  sueo  suo.     (Capt.  82) 

eeastor  lege  dura  vivont  mulieres 

nniltoque  iniquiore  miserae  quam  viri.     (Merc.  817) 

itaque  nos  ventisque  fluctibusque 
iactatae  exemplis  plurumis  miserae"  perpetuam  noctem;   (Rud.  369) 

ilia  autem  virgo  atque  altera  itidem  ancillula 

de  navi  timidae  desuluerunt  in  scapham.      (Rud.  74) 

il)i  me  nescio  quis  arripit 
tiniidam  atque  pavidam,  nee  vivani  nee  mortuani.     (Cure.  648) 

A  similar  pathetic  effect  is  evident  in 

muliereulas 
video  sedentis  in  scai)ha  solas  duas.     (Rud.  102) 


2«"\r 


n 


Nor  present  participles  as  in 

nam  istaec  quae  tibi  renuntiantur,  filium 

te   velle   amantem   argento   circumducere,    (Ps.    430) 

So,  preceding  a  pronoun,  in  a  lyrical  context: 


sed  muliebri  animo  sum  tamen:   miserae   (quom  venit)   in  mentem 
niihi  mortis,  metu  membra  occupat.     (Rud.  685) 

Note    the    alliteration    carried    through    the    couplet    with    pathetic    effect. 
Another  example,  of  misera  following  a  pronoun: 

pol  me  quidem 
miseram   odio   enicavit.      (As.   920) 


220 


Universitu  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 


Nor  will  there  be  any  doii])t  that  these  adjectives  are  inde- 
]iendent  : 

nunc  equos  iunctos  iuhes 
capere  me  iudomitos,  ferocis,  (Men.  862) 

Conviva  commodus  in  M.  G.  642  does  not  prevent  the  same 
adjective  from  becoming  an  ami)lifyino:  expression  with  the  same 
noun  in 

conviva.s  volo 
reperire  nobis  couuiiodos,  qui  una  sient.     (Poen.  C15) 

Here  the  noun  and  adjective  appear  at  the  extremes  of  the  sen- 
tence after  and  before  pauses.=»    In  the  following  case  the  con- 
text shows  that  frigidam  is  predicative;  calc fieri  finds  its  anti 
thesis  in  adponi  frigidam: 

calefieri  iussi  reliquias— pemani  qui.lein 

ius  est  adponi  frigidam  postridie.      (Pers.   105) 

*' Served  up  cold''  is  clearly  the  idea.-^ 

Nor  may  I  admit  as  indubitable  cases  of  real  separation  such 
substantival  adjectives  as  virgo  and  iwsticum: 

eius  cupio  filiam 
virginem  mihi  desponderi.     (Aul.  17:2) 

est  etiam  hie  ostium 
aliud  posticum  nostrarum   harunc  aedium:    (St.  449) 

Filiola  virgo  (Rud.  39)  and  virginem  gnatam  siiam  (Trin.  113) 
may  support  the  adjectival  force  of  the  first  adjective,  but  in 
any  ease  the  separation  in  our  passage  defines  filia  and  contrasts 
the  daughter  of  Euclio  with  the  middle-aged  woman  of  Mega- 
dorus's  previous  remarks  (162).2«    As  for  posticum,  it  is  clearlv 

"The  adjective  mohstum  in  the  following  verses  is  more  closely  con- 
nected with  the  infinitive: 

et  impudicum  et  imi»udentem  hominem  addecet 
niolestum  ultro  advenire  ad  alienam  domum,   (Rud.  115) 
And  one  will  not  take  luculentum   (lucultnte  P)   as  anything  but  predica- 
tive (Ep.  158)  after  comparing  vs.  341  of  the  same  play. 
=»Cf. 

memini:  ut  muraena  et  conger  ne  calefierent: 

nam  nimio  melius  oppectuntur  frigida.      (Pers.  110) 

"So,  but  with  clearly  expressed  contrast  in  the  second  verse,  the  com- 
pound virffo  civ  is  is  divided  in 

an  pauhim  hoc  esse  tibi  ridetur,  virginem 

vitiare  civemf     conservam  esse  eredidi.     (Ter.  Eun.  857) 


Vol.  ij       Prescotf. — Thought   and   Verse   in  Plant 


us. 


221 


a  substantive  in  IVlost.  931,  and  so  its  diminutive  in  Trin.  194, 
1085;  in  the  Stichus,  if  not  an  appositive,  it  defines  ostium.^^ 
The  separation  of  aliud  does  not  here  concern  us. 

In  connection  with  substantival  adjectives  another  passage  in 
the  Aulularia  is  to  be  considered: 

namque  hoc  qui  dicat :  quo  illae  mibent  divites 

dotatae,   si   istud   ius   pauperibus   poniturf      (Aul.    489)*= 

The  contrast  between  divites  and  paupcrcs  suggests  that  the  for- 
mer is  substantival ;  l)ut  it  does  not  at  once  follow  that  dotatae 
is  purely  adjectival.  For  vss.  534-5  of  the  same  play  show  how 
easily  the  participial  adjective  becomes  substantival : 

nam  quae  indotata  est,  ea  in  potestate  est  viri; 
dotatae  maetant  et  nialo  et  damno  viros. 

Similarly  Ter.  Phor.  938,  940.     If,  however,  it  is  adjectival  in 
our  passage,  it  adds  to  and  explains  divites  very  much  as  facti 
osum  in 

venit  hoc  mihi,  Megadore,  in  mentem  ted  esse  hominem  divitem 
factiosum,   me  autem  esse  hominem  pauperum  pauperrimum.      (Aul.   226) 

In  both  passages  we  have  the  contrast  between  rich  and  poor, 
and  in  factiosum  as  in  dotatae  the  happy  isolation  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  verses  of  a  more  specific  attribute  of  the  rich  class: 
in  each  case  the  emphasis  is  accentuated  by  the  sense-pause 
which  follows  the  separated  adjective.  From  a  different  point 
of  view  hominem  divitem  \  factiosum  should  be  compared  with 
hominem  strenuom  \  benevolentem  (Ps.  697,  above,  p.  211). 

]\lost  of  such  amplifying  ideas  are  similarly  brought  into 
prominence  by  their  position  at  the  beginning  of  the  second 
verse;  often  they  are  followed  by  a  decided  sense-pause;  some- 
times this  separation  brings  them  into  the  vicinity  of  contrasted 


SI 


The  verse  immediatly  following  in  the  Stichus  (450a)  contains  pos- 
ticam  yartcm,  but  this  verse  is  not  in  A,  and  the  division  of  450a  and 
451  in  B  is  suspicious:  cf.  Leo  ad  loc.  If  vs.  450a  is  genuine,  as  Lindsay 
seems  to  regard  it  in  his  Oxford  text,  a  purely  adjectival  force  gains 
some  support.    Cf.  Pauli  Festus,  220  M^276  de  Ponor. 

*^In  a  similar  context  Menander  (585  K.)  has  a  similar  separation: 

6<Tnf  yvifaik"  k7riK7j/pov  lirtdv/nei  7jijielv 

7r?MVTov(jav  ' 


OQQ 


University  of  Calif ornia  Publivatiuns,    L<'lass  Phil. 


Vol.  ij       Prrscott. — Thought   and   Vase   in  Plautus. 


223 


Ji: 


kloas.-    All  of  these  featviros,  witi,  att.n.l.nt  alliteration,  arc 
illustrated  in 

ego  te,  I'bil(KTatos 
false,  faeiaiii  ut  verus  ho.lio  reperiare  Tvi.,larus.     (Capt.  609) 

The  separation  of  an  adjective  from  a  vocative  is  similarly  ar- 
ranged, but  here  in  a  succession  of  epithets  (referred  to  on 
p.  211),  in 

Qiii«l  a  is,  homo 
l«*vior  quuiii  i.luina,  ]>ossiiine  et  lUHiuissiinic. 
flagitium  hominis,  subdole  ac  rniiiinii  preti?     (Men.  487) 

The  surprise  of  the  opi,robrious  epithet  is  made  more  effective  by 
separation  and  prominent  position.  The  element  of  surprise 
which  false  and  levior,  like  suhvolturium  and  volaticonim 
among  the  long  adjectives,  illustrate,  recurs  in  another  example 
of  the  vocative;  the  parasite  greets  his  patron  as  a  veritable  -od 
on  earth:  "^ 

o  mi  III  pp  it  or 
terrestris,  te  coepulonus  compel  hit  tuos.     (Pers.  99) 

Without  the  element  of  surprise  and  without  so  distinct  a  sense- 
pause,  but,  I  think,  with  emphasis  patnni  is  separated  in 

nonne   arbitraris   eum   ailnleseentem   anuli 
paterni  signum  novisse.     (Trin.  789) 

So  in  Poen.  1080  the  same  adjective  stands  with  emi>hasis  in  the 
same  position,  though  not  separated. 

Contrast  is  heightened  by  alliteration'^^  in 

qwodque  concubinam  erilem   insimulare  ausus  es 
probri  pudicam  meque  siimmi  flagiti,   (M.  G.  508) 

and  here  prominent  position  is  given  to  the  crime  rather  than 
the  adjective,  that  the  two  crimes  may  occupy  the  extremes  of 

» For  contrasted  ideas  brought  into  the  same  verse  by  the  separation 
Of  an  adjective  cf.  Caecilius  221  R»: 

egon  vitam  nieam 
Attieam  contendam  cum  istac  rusticana  (tua),  Syra? 

unless  it  is  an  octonarius,  as  C.  F.  W.  Muller  supposes.  Bergk's  asticam 
brings  out  the  contrast  more  plainly:  cf.  rusticatim  .  .  .  urbanatim  in  Pom- 
ponius  7  R»  (Leo,  Analecta  Plautina:  de  figuris  sermonis  II  32) 

-Cf.  prohrum,  propinqua  partitudo  (Aul.  75),  prohrum  .  .  .  partitudo 
prope  .  .  .  palam  (Aul.  276). 


the  verse  and  the  two  abused  innocents  be  juxtaposed  in  pudicam 
meque.  Contrast  and  comprehensiveness  are  obtained  in  this 
separation  of  dextcram: 

age  riisum  ostonde  hue  manum 
dexteram. — em. — nunc  laevam  ostende. — (piin  cquidem  ambas  profero.     (Aul. 
649) 

Somewhat  different  is  the  collocation  in 

iiixus  laovo  in  foniiiio  habot  laovam  mamini, 
doxtera  digitis  ratioiioiu  ooniputat,  ferit  tVmur 
dextcrum.      (^L   G.  203) 

Here  the  contrasted  parts  occupy  different  verses;  dcxterum 
echoes  dextcra  of  the  preceding  verse,-^^  and  the  actor's  gestures 
doubtless  contributed  to  the  effect;  the  alliterative  features  arc 
plain,  whether  or  not  part  of  the  poet's  intention  in  separating 
the  adjective. 

An  adjective  expressive  of  size  is  naturally  liable  to  separation 
and  prominence  ;^^  in  this  example  maxumi  is  practically  predic- 
ative ;  number  and  size  are  postponed  w^ith  dramatic  effect : 

postquam  in  cunas  eonditust 
devolant  angues  iubati  deorsum  in  implnvium  duo 
maxumi:  continuo  extollunt  ambo  capita.     (Amph.  1107) 

Essentially  attributive,  but  in  effective  juxtaposition,  the  same 
adjective  is  postponed  with  more  injury  to  verse-unity  in 

sumne  probus,  sum  lepidus  civis,  qui  Attieam  hodie  civitatem 
maxumam  maiorem  feci  atque  auxi  civi  femina?     (Pers.  474) 

The  postponement  of  the  verb  makes  the  thought  less  complete, 
but  the  alliterative  juxtaposition^^  of  the  superlative  and  com- 
parative more  than  compensates  for  the  separation.  When  the 
verb  comes  in  the  first  verse,  the  adjective  escapes  into  the  second 
verse  with  less  violence  to  unity,  and  in  this  example  is  brought 


■*  Cf.  usque  ...  I  usque  ...  I  faciehatis  .  .  .  |  fugiehatis  .  .  .  (As.  210- 
213) ;  iu^sin  (As.  424-426)  ;  deam  .  .  .  |  deum  .  .  .  (As.  781-782) ;  omnes 
(Aul.  114-115) ;  itaque  (Cist.  513-515) ;  peril  (Merc.  124-125) ;  egomei 
(Merc.  852-854) ;  ferreas^  ferream,  ferreas  (Pers.  571-573) ;  perque  (Poen. 
418-420),  pater  .  .  .  |  pater  .  .  .  (Poen.  1260-1261). 

••  Cf .  Norden,  Aeneis  Buch  VI,  390. 

"  Cf .  Cas.  1006,  Amph.  704,  Capt.  1034,  M.  G.  1218,  Rud.  71,  St.  739. 


■H 


224 


University  of  California  Publications,   [Class  Phil. 


1 


into  associations  of  thought  and  sound  that  give  the  second  verse 
a  unity  of  its  own : 

nulla  igitiir  dicat:  eqiiidem  dotem  ad  te  adtuli 
maiorem  niulto  quam  tibi  erat  pecunia.     (Aul.  498) 

So  with  elaborated  emphasis  on  size : 

verum    nunc    si    qua    mi    obtigerit    heroditas 
magna  atque  luculenta,^  (True.  344) 

A  necessary  specification  is  added  to  the  noun  in 

ut  opinor,  quam  ex  me  ut  unam  faciam  litteram 

lon(gam,  me)um   laqueo  collum  quando  obstrinxero.      (Aul.   77)'^ 

Alliterative  possibilities  may  have  helped  attract  the  adjective 
mto  the  neighl)orhood  of  laqiuo;  the  alliteration  in  litteram  I 
longam  is  merely  an  unavoidable  accident. 

This  prominent  position,  combined  with  a  sense-pause  some- 
times introduces  an  elaboration  of  the  idea^«  expressed  in  th. 
separated  adjective:  so  in  the  ehd)oration  of  a  joke: 

si  hercle  illic  illas  hodie  digito  totigerit 
invitas,    ni    istune    istis    invitassitis    (Ru.l.    810) 

or  with  further  explanation  of  the  idea  as  in  the  examples  quoted 
al)ove  (p.  211)  in  Rud.  1158,  and  (p.  209)  421,  872. 

In  two  examples  in  which  the  long  adjective  inhc^iestus  is  set 
«t  the  beginning-  of  the  verse  the  amplifying  idea  occupies  the 
entire  second  verse  with  predicative  effect: 

nunc  hie  occepit  quaestum  hune  fili  gratia 

iuhonestum  et  niaxime  alieuum  ingenio  suo.     (Capt.  98) 


-Note   the   balance   between    magna   atque   lucuhnta    (345)    and   dulce 
atque  amarttm  (346).  ^     ^  "  '^ 

"•According  to  the  reading  of  the  MSS.  Bacch.  279  belongs  here: 

ego  lembum  conspieor 
longuni  strigorem  male  fie  um  exornarier. 

But  strigorem  is  dubious. 

*•  Cf.  Norden,  Aeneis  Buch  VI,  391. 

"The  same  adjective   stands  in   the  same   position   in   Ter.   Eun.    357. 
±or  the  occupation  of  the  entire  second  verse  cf.  Trin.  750: 

sed  ut  ego  nunc  adulescenti  thensaurum  indicem 
indomito,  pleno  amoris  ac  lasciviaef 


VOL.  1]       Prcscott. — Thought  and  Verse  in  Plautus. 

verum  quom  nniltos  nuilta  admisse  acceperini 

inhonesta   propter  amorem  atque   aliena   a  bonis:    (M.   G.   1287) 


225 


43 


A  few  cases  remain  in  which  the  added  ideas,  set  off  at  or 
near  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse,  are  rather  conspicuously 
linked  by  alliteration  to  neighboring  words  in  the  same  verse; 
some  such  cases  have  been  already  mentioned,  but  in  the  follow- 
ing the  alliteration  is  even  more  conspicuous: 

turn  quae  hie  sunt  scriptae  litterae,  hoc  in  equo  insunt  milites 
arniati  atque  aniniati  i>robe."     (Bacch.  941) 

quid  istic?  verba  faeimus.     huic  honiini  opust  quadraginta  minis 
celeriter  calidis,  danistae  quas  resolvat,  et  cito.     (Ep.  141) 

quibus  liie  pretiis  porci  veneunt 
sacres  sinceri?     (Men.  289) 

Diaeresis  or  caesura  contribute  to  the  emphasis  and  independent 
unity  of  the  amplifying  ideas;  in  the  second  example  the  entire 
second  verse  has  a  unity  of  its  own,  of  which  the  alliteration  is 
a  superficial  indication.'**  In  the  following  example,  referred 
to  among  the  cases  of  successive  epithets,  the  alliteration  in  both 
verses  brings  into  relief  the  distinct  unity  .of  each,  and  the  sepa- 
rated adjective,  being  only  the  last  in  an  accumulation  of  epi- 
thets, escapes  into  the  second  verse  without  violence: 

iam  hercle  ego  istos  fictos  compositos  crispos  coneinnos  tuos 
unguentatos  usque  ex  cerebro  exvellam.     (True.  287) 

In  ]\I.  (r.  508  we  noted  a  certain  artificiality  in  probri  pudicam 
mequc  summi  flagiti  (above,  p.  222).  The  employment  of  the 
ends  of  a  verse  to  set  in  relief  a  pair  of  balanced  ideas  appears  in 


ti 


erne,  mi  vir,  lanam,  unde  tibi  pallium 
malacum  et  calidum  conficiatur,  tunicaeque  hibernae  bonae,*'   (M.  G.  687) 

The  adjectives  here  are  less  evidently  amplifying,  though  con- 
ceivably separable;  the  striking  feature  is  the  position  of  each 


"Omitted  in  A. 
"Cf.  Accius  308  R': 


ut  nunc,  cum  animatus  iero,  satis  armatus  sum. 

**For  alliterative  groups  including  caUdus  cf.  Cas.  255,  309,  Ep.  256; 
and  especially,  in  connection  with  our  passage: 

reperi,   comminiscere,  cedo  calidum   consilium   cito,    (M.   G.   226) 


226 


University  of  California  Puhlications.   [Class  Phil. 


Vol.  1]       Prcscott. — Thought  and  Verse  in  Plant  us. 


227 


f 


pair  of  adjectives  at  the  oi)iK)Mte  extreme  of  the  verse  the  first 
pair  varied  by  the  connectinor  particle  et.  The  two  substantives 
are  divided  between  the  verses ;  the  verb  eommon  to  toth  stands 
before  the  diaeresis  of  the  second  v.-rse;  the  alliteration  is  com- 
paratively  unimportant.  Cf.  Norden,  Aeneis  Bud.  VI,  383  on 
similar  phenomena  in  Vergil. 

The  regularity  with  which  adjectives,  following  their  substan- 
tives and  separated,  stand  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse 
IS  not  appreciably  disturbed  by  a  few  examples  of  different  dis' 
positions  of  the  separated  ideas.  So  the  adjective  saccrnanas, 
which  regularly  appears  at  the  end  of  a  verse  in  Plantus  (Rud 
158.  .Most.  983),  is  effectively  placed  in  a  verse  which  constitutes 
a  unity  by  itself  and  with  alliteration  that  his.s,.s  out  the  oni.ro- 
brioiis  epithet :" 

prat-sonti  argeiito  homini,  si  Icno  est  lionio. 

quantum  honiiimni  terra  sustinet  sucrruiiio.      (Poen.   S9) 

Similarly  Plautus  .sets  off  the  accomplishments  of  the  parasite's 
sun-dial;  again  superlatives,  and  to  be  sure  in  one  case  metrical! v 
convenient  (cf.  Merc.  206) ;  and  again  in  a  verse  that  is  an  in"- 
depende.it  unit ;  both  this  and  the  forn.er  e.xa.ni.le  arc  i^c- 
tially  predicative: 

nani(ununi)  me  pupro  venter  erat  .sularium, 

multo  omnium  istorum  optimum  et  verissu'mum.     (Boeotia,  1,  4) 

The  .separated  adjective  stands  after  a  diaeresis,  with  reiteration 
of  the  same  idea  at  the  en.l  of  the  .si...,e  verse  and  in  the  ne.xt 
verse,  in 

ijuia  enim  liliu 
DOS  oportet  opitulari  unico.— at  (|uainquam  unicust, 
nihilo  magis  ille  unicust  niihi   Hlius  quam  ego  illi  pater:    (Cas.   262) 

(Cf.  Capt.  150:  tibi  ilh  unicust,  mi  ctiam  uuko  magis  unicus  ) 
A  somewhat  sin.ilar  but  less  explicable  separation  occurs  in 

si  itast,  tesseram 
conferre  si  vis  hospitalem,  eccam  attuli.      (Poen.    1047) 

Here  the  adjective  is  not  demonstrably  amplifying   (cf.  95S, 

*•  Cf.  Ter.  Hec.  85: 

minime  equidem  me  oblectavi,  quae  cum  milite 
Corinthum  hinc  sum  profecta  iuhumanissumo: 


1052,  where  it  precedes  the  noun),  though  it  may  be  felt  as  an 
afterthought ;  the  association  of  thought  in  eccam  attuli  may 
have  drawn  it  from  its  noun ;  but  the  interruption,  by  the  verse- 
end,  of  the  artificial  interlocking  of  tesseram  conferre  si  vis  hos- 
pitahm — a  thought-unit  embraced  between  noun  and  adjective 
— is  striking.  The  examples  above  (Poen.  615,  Pers.  105,  p. 
220)  are  similar,  but  the  adjectives  in  those  cases  are  more 
clearly  amplifying  or  predicative. 

We  have  reviewed  the  cases  in  which  the  separated  adjectives 
follow  their  substantives:*^  such  adjectives  have  very  regularly 
stood  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse  and  usually  with  a 
caesura  or  sense-pause  innnediately  following;  with  few  excep- 
tions they  have  been  added  ideas,  the  separation  of  which  was 
accomplished  without  violence  to  verse-unity;  many  of  them, 
indeed,  were  almost  if  not  quite  predicative;  most  of  them 
gained  by  separation,  through  acquiring  emphasis,  or  producing 
antithesis  or  sound-effects.  There  is  perhaps  only  one  doubtful 
case: 

quin  potius  per  gratiam 
bonam  abeat  abs  te.     (M.  G.  1125) 

It  may  hardly  be  said  that  honam  adds  to  the  thought,  for  per 
gratiam  is  sufficient  in  itself  (M.  G.  979,  1200,  and  St.  71  accord- 
ing to  Leo,  Bemerkungen  iiber  pi.  Wortstellungen  etc.  418  and 
Lindsay,  Class.  Kev.  8  [1894]  159).  Bona  gratia  is,  of  course, 
Plautine  (Bacch.  1022,  Kud.  516).  The  same  idea,  expressed  in 
the  same  play,  vs.  979, 

vin  tu  illam  actutum  amovere,  a  te  ut  abeat  per  gratiam? 

makes  us  suspect  that  in  1125  the  poet  availed  himself  of  the 
pleonastic  adjective  and  of  separation  for  the  sake  of  the  reitera- 


**Most.  501  should  be  added: 

hospes  me  hie  iiecavit,  isque  me 
defodit   insepultum  clam    (ibidem)    in   hisce  aedibus, 
scelestus,  auri  causa,  nunc  tu  hinc  emigra: 
scelestae  hae  sunt  aedes,  impiast  habitatio. 

The   afterthought   scelestus   is   echoed   in  scelestae.     Insepultum  needs   no 
<;omment:  cf.  defodit  in  terram  dimidiatos  in  Cato's  Speeches,  XXXVII  3. 


228 


Universifu  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 


tion  of  a-  and  b-sounds,  just  as  a  consideration  for  a-  and  t- 
sounds  affected  the  structure  of  vs.  979.*^ 

It  is  obvious  that  the  eases  of  separation  in  wliich  the  adjec- 
tive appears  in  the  first  verse,  and  the  substantive  in  the  second 
necessarily  involve  the  incompleteness  of  the  first  verse      In' 
most  of  the  cases  enumerated  in  the  previous  para-raplis  the 
adjectives  ranged  from  purely  predicative  to  loosdv  amplifv- 
injf:  the  thoufrht  was  in  a  measure  complete  in  the  first  verse 
especially  if  the  verb  came  in  that  verse;  the  separation  was 
apparent  rather  than  real.     The  examples  about  to  be  discussed 
may  seem,  per  se.  to  impair  the  validity  of  Leo's  theory  it  is 
important,  therefore,  to  note  that  they  are  few  in  number  '  \or 
IS  It  impossible  that  in  spite  of  the  separation  the  noun  or  adjec- 
tive may  be  so  related  to  the  context  as  to  reinforce  to  some 
extent  the  unity  of  the  verses. 

It  may  be  well  to  quote  at  once  a  striking  example  of  the  reali- 
zation of  this  possibility.  In  one  passage  already  quoted  we 
have  seen  some  evidence  of  a  rather  studied  disposition  of  adjec 
tives  and  substantives  (JI.  G.  687,  above,  p.  225).  The  ease 
before  us  shows  evidence  of  even  more  care  in  the  collocation  of 
words : 

aequo  mcncliciis  atqiip  illc  <>i>ulentis.<iiimis 

ceiisetur  ceiiaii  ad  Acherunteni  mortuos.     (Trin.  493) 

It  is  perhaps  annoying  to  enumerate  the  features  of  this  couplet 
which  are  sufficiently  plain  to  any  sympathetic  reader  or  hearer' 
in  the  first  place,  the  thought  is  incomplete  until  the  caesura  of 
the  second  verse  is  reached.  Yet  the  separation  of  aequo  from 
censu  ,s  attended  by  an  effective  juxtaposition  of  ideas  in  the 
firstverse^  which  gives  to  that  veree  a  partial  unity."    The  sep- 

.  "■^PP"''"'.  '•   «•   67-68,   distinguishes   sharply   between    aissyllabic   and 
tnsyllabic  adjectives,  and  maintains  that  the  former  may  not  ^  ™te" 
There  does  not  seem  to  me  to   be  any  evidence   to   wLant   sumil 
nnell":;'"'  ",  "^t^  T"*'^"'  P™'^'"'"^     "«  contention  that  t,l., 

ar^X^n  T'"^' '"  *"^  ''"* '-''  "-^  --  ">«  -p-tion,  bu: 

••Cf.  Cist.  532: 

poatremo  quantlo  aequa  lege  pauperi  cum  divite 
non  licet, 


Vol.  1]       Prcscott. —Thought  and  Vevsc   in  Plautus. 


900 


aration  of  ccnm  results  in  a  figura  cfi,mologica  and  consequent 
unity  of  sound-  and  sense-effect.  And  mortuos  at  the  end  car- 
ries us  back  to  the  nouns  of  the  first  verse  in  such  a  way  as  to 
establish  the  unity  of  the  couplet  by  the  close  interlockincr  of 
ideas.^*^ 

A  phase  of  airo  kolvov  is  illustrated  in  the  following  case: 

decot  innocentom  qui  sit  atquc  iinicxium 

servom  superbuni  esse,  apud  enim  potissumum.     (Ps.  460) 

The  thought  is  again  incomplete  until  we  reach  the  caesura  of 
the  second  verse;  yet  there  is  a  fitness  in  the  transference  of 
sirvom  to  the  side  of  superbum,  with  which  it  belongs  as  much 
as  with  the  adjectives  of  the  preceding  verse,  and  to  which  allit- 
erative opportunities  (cf.  As.  470)  attract  it.  The  significance 
of  this  example  is  clearer  on  comparing  it  with  the  recurrence 
of  the  same  thought  without  separation  of  the  adjective  in 

decet  innocenteni  servom  atque  innoxium 

iMHifidenteiii  esse,  suom  apud  eruni  potissumum.     (Capt.  665) 

In  both  passages  the  verse  preceding  the  couplet  contains  the 
adverb  confidentcr,  and  this  adverb  prompts  the  commonplace 
ill  each  case :  in  the  Capt.  the  poet  repeats  the  idea  of  the  adverb  * 
ii.  the  corresponding  adjective;  in  the  Ps.  he  chooses  a  synonym. 
It  is  not,  of  course,  possible  to  discover  whether  in  the  latter 
case  his  choice  was  determined  by  a  desire  to  avoid  the  recur- 
rence of  the  same  stem  or  whether  the  alliterative  unit  servom 
superb um  came  to  his  mind  independently  of  any  consciousness 
of  monotony  in  the  repetition  confidenter—confidentem.  But 
in  any  case  the  comparative  artificiality  of  the  couplet  from  the 
Ps.  is  evident:  the  development  in  freedom  of  technique  is 
clear.^*^    Without  discounting  the  value  of  other  factors  may  we 

*"Xor  is  the  emphasis  on  aequo  to  be  overlooked;  cf.  the  Greek  equiva- 
lent in  Menander  538  K: 

Koivdv  Tov  "Aidrjv  loxov  ol  Trdvreg  fSfwroi, 

The  tragic  seriousness  of  the  speaker  in  the  Trinummus  perhaps  explains 
the  artificial  style,  which  adds  dignity  to  the  expression  (Leo,  Plant. 
Forsch.  122  and  note  5). 

^  The  hiatus  in  Capt.  665  is  perhaps  a  part  of  the  crudity  of  composi- 
ticn. 


230 


Wnixfersily  of  California  Puhlications.    [Class  Phil. 


Vol.  1]       Prcscott.— Thought  and  Terse  in  Plautus. 


231 


not  say  that  when  once  the  alliterative  unit  occurred  to  him  the 
unity  of  sound  proved  superior  to  the  affinity  of  the  attributive 
for  its  noun,  and  that  this  conservation  of  unity  of  sound  was 
made  easier  or  perhaps  sugj^ested  by  the  fact  that  there  was  a 
strong  unity  of  thouj^ht  as  w^ell  which  linked  servom  to  siiptr- 
bumf  By  this  question  we  do  not  imply  any  conscious  intent 
on  the  poet's  part;  we  mean  simply  to  suggest  that  the  two 
examples  seem  to  us  to  prove  that  the  poet's  technique  on  occa- 
sion had  got  beyond  the  point  of  preserving  the  more  natural 
and  obvious  unity  of  thought,  and  shows  here  as  elsewhere  a 
sensitiveness  to  unity  of  sound  and  to  the  more  artificial  phases 
of  unity  of  thought. 

In  this  connection,  properly,  we  should  note  the  isolation  of 
an  adjective  in  the  first  verse  by  the  transposition  of  its  noun 
to  a  relative  clause  that  occupies  the  second  verse  :^^ 

nisi  qui  ni«'li«>r«'in  inlforot 
quae  mi  atque  uiniciH  plaeeat  coiidieio  magis,  (Capt.  179) 

It  will  be  granted  that  this  is  analogous  to  our  previous  exam- 
ple: again  the  noun,  to  which  two  attributive  ideas  belong,  is 
expressed  with  the  second. 

Somewhat  similar,  too,  are  these  cases  in  which  a  noun  com- 
mon  to  two  adjectives  is  separated  from  the  first  adjective,  and 
stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse  before  a  sense-pause; 
the  second  adjective  stands  in  the  same  verse  with  the  noun: 

mult  is  et  multigeneribus  opus  est  tibi 

militibus:    primunulum   opus   est    Pistorensibus;    (Capt.    159) 

quam  ego  postquam  aspexi,  non  ita  amo  ut  sani  solent 
homines,  seil  eodem  paeto  ut  insani  solent.     (Merc.  262) 

The  sound-effects,  especially  in  the  tetrasyllabic  rhyme  in  the 
second  case,  are  obvious. 


Bl 


The  figure  of  speech  involved,  without  separation  by  the  verse,  is 
easily  paralleled  in  Plautus  and  other  poets:  for  examples  cf.  Bach,  de  at- 
tractione  .  .  .  inversa  ap.  scriptores  latinos  IG;  Vahlen,  Hermes  17  (1882) 
598-599;  Leo,  Analecta  Plautina:  de  figuris  sermonis  I  20.  If,  however, 
separation  by  the  verse  occurs,  the  adjective  is  usually  a  demonstrative: 
cf.  Rud.  10l>5,  Poen.  449  (quoted  below,  p.  254). 


Equally  studied  is  the  juxtaposition  of  different  case-forms  of 
the  same  word;  the  separation  that  results  may  indicate  that 
the  attraction  of  words  of  the  same  stem  for  each  other"  is 
stronger  than  the  attraction  of  the  attributive  to  its  noun  or 
than  any  sensitiveness  to  verse-unity: 

nam  ex  uno  puteo  similior  nunquam  potis 

aqua  aquai"  sunii  quam  haec  est  atque  ista  hospita.     (M.  G.  551) 

Again  the  thought  reaches  a  partial  completion  at  the  caesura; 
the  four  objects  in  two  pairs  are  grouped  in  the  second  verse; 
and  the  sound-effect  in  aqua  aquai  was  doubtless  not  ungrateful 
to  the  audience.  This  example,  too,  gains  in  significance  from 
the  occurrence  of  the  same  thought  in  another  form : 

nam  ego  homiuem  hominis  similiorem  nunquam  vidi  alterum. 
neque  aqua  aquae  nee  lacte  est  lactis,  crede  mi,  usquam  similius, 
quam  hie  tui  est,  tuque  huius  autcm;   (Men.  1088) 

Here  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  second  example,  which  is  with- 
out separation,  shows  all  the  simplicity  and  explicit  fulness  of 
an  early  and  undeveloped  style;  the  identity  of  sentence  and 
verse  is  almost  as  exact  as  in  the  early  Saturnian  verse.  The 
first  example,  on  the  contrary,  shows  a  freer  technique:  the 
thought  is  more  condensed,  less  explicit;  verse-unity  is  less  scru- 
pulously preserved.  We  have  a  suggestion  before  us  of  a  dif- 
ference, if  not  of  a  development,  in  verse-technique  in  the  course 
of  the  poet's  activity. 

Artificiality  in  the  disposition  of  words  is  clearly  discernible 
in 

non  meministi  me  auream  ad  te  afferre  natali  die 
lunulam  atque  auellum  aureolum  in  digitum?     (Ep.  639) 

The  chiastic  arrangement  of  the  pairs  of  substantives  and  adjec- 
tives, the  consistent  diminutives  in  the  second  verse  in  contrast 
with  auream  in  the  first  verse,  and  the  artificial  interlocking  of 
the  words  are  the  noticeable  features.  So  far  as  any  unity  is 
discoverable,  it  consists  only  in  such  unity  as  appeals  to  the  ear 

"For  other  examples  cf.   Kiessling,  Eh.   Mus.   23    (1869)    411  ff,,  Kel- 
lerhof,  1.  c.  58-60. 

"The  traces  of  aeque  in  A  and  B  (both,  however,  corrected  to  aquae) 
need  not  detain  us:  cf.  Men.  1089  quoted  above. 


232 


Univcrsify  of  Cnlifornia  ruhlications.   [^lass  Phil. 


Vol.  1]       t'rcscott.— Thought   and  Verse   m   Plautus. 


233 


I 


from  the  different  sound-effects  of  each  vei-se— a-sonnds  predom- 
inating in  the  first  verse,  1-,  m-,  ii-,  and  n-sounds  in  the  second; 
certainly  there  does  seem  to  be  something  conscious  in  the  change 
from  auream  of  the  first  verse  to  aureolum  of  the  second;  we 
may  properly  maintain  that  the  unity  of  form  and  of  sound- 
effects  in  the  second  verse  could  have  arisen  only  from  a  con- 
sciousness that  the  second  verse  was  a  distinct  entity.  At  the 
same  time  the  fact  that  the  consciousness  expresses  itself  only 
in  a  superficial  or  external  preservation  of  verse-unity,  and  that 
unity  of  thought  is  interrupted,  suggests  that  ** art-poetry"  in 
Plautus  \s  hands  was  on  occasion  further  advanced  than  the 
chronological  proxinn'ty  of  Saturnian  verse  would  lead  us  to 
sus{)ect. 

In  contrast  with  merely  superficial  observance  of  unity  stand 
a  few  cases  of  separation  in  which  the  thought  serves  to  reassert 
the  unity  of  the  verse: 

hosticum  hoc  milii 
domiciliiim  est,  Athenis  ilomiis  est  Atticis;  ego  istam  doimini 
iieque  moror  necjiie  vos  qui  homines  sitis  novi  neque  scio.     (M.  G.  450) 


Alliteration,  to  be  sure,  may  have  attracted  hosticum  to  hoc,  but 
the  dominant  factors  are  emphasis  and  contrast.  Hostkum  is 
first  in  the  sentence  because  emphasis  brings  it  to  that  position. 
DomkiUum  is  first  in  the  verse-'*  because  emphasis  again  de- 
mands for  it  a  prominent  position :  it  must  stand  in  the  same 
verse  with  domus  to  bring  out  the  contrast  between  ''house'' 
and  **home.''  The  effect  may  be  suggested  in  English  by 
''Stop!  a  stranger's  \  house  you  point  me  to;  my  home's  in 
Athens;  for  jjour  home  \  I  care  not,  nor  know  I  who  you  gentle- 
men  may  be.'' 

Another  passage  in  which  at  first  sight  unity  seems  to  be  dis- 
regarded, when  studied  in  the  light  of  the  context,  shows  con- 
siderable consciousness  of  the  intimate  association  of  verse-unit 
and  thought-unit: 

habui  numerum  sedulo:  hoc  est  sextiiiii  a  porta  proxumiim 
angiportum,  in  id  angiportiim  me  devorti  iusserat; 
^"^*"™*^  *^^^^^  dixerit,  id  ego  admodum  ineerto  scio.     (Ps.  960) 


1 


Here,  again,  it  may  be  said  that  porta  has  attracted  the  allitera- 
tive proxumum,  but  the  verse-division  represents  a  correspond- 
ing division  of  thought.  The  beginning  of  the  first  verse  leads 
up  to  the  number  and  precise  location;  angiportum.  separated 
from  its  two  adjectives,  stands  out  at  the  beginning  of  the  sec- 
ond verse,  again  with  emphasis,  and  is  repeated"  with  the  re- 
sumptive pronoun— all  of  which  heightens  the  contrast  with 
acdis  of  the  third  verse.  The  effect  is:  "I've  got  the  number 
right:  the  sixth,  (in  going  from  the  gate),  |  alley-way,  that's 
the  alley-way  I  was  told  to  take;  |  l)ut  the  number  of  the  house, 
that  I've  clean  forgotten." 

Perhaps  the  existence  of  any  unity  in  the  following  example 
will  be  less  readily  granted: 

coepi  observare  ecqui  maiorem  filius 

mihi  lionorcm  hal)eret  qiiam  eius  habuisset  pater.      (Aiil.   16) 

There  seem  to  be  two  prominent  factors  in  the  separation :  the 
comf>arative  degree  is  attracted  to  the  ablative  of  degree  of  dif- 
ference;^*^ alliteration  brings  together  honorem  and  haberet.'''^ 
Yet  is  it  too  fanciful  to  say  that  in  spite  of  the  separation  the 
position  of  filius  and  j^dter  at  the  ends  of  their  verses^^  suggests 
a  unity  of  thought  quite  apart  from  and  above  the  syntactical 
and  alliterative  unity  of  each  verse?  The  two  verses  are  com- 
parable to  the  two  pans  of  the  scale,  the  son  balancing  the  father, 
and  maiorem  alongside  of  filius  marking  the  turn  of  the  balance 
which  the  expectant  Lar  anticipates.^® 


» 


Examples  •£  such  repetition  may  be  found  in  Bach,  de  usu  pron. 
demonstrat.  ==  Studemund-Stud.   II  353-354. 

'"See  the  examples  in  Fraesdorff,  de  comparativi  gradus  usu  Plautino 
31  ff.  Other  factors,  external  or  internal,  may  have  precedence  over  the 
natural  juxtaposition  of  the  ablative  of  degree  and  the  comparative,  but 
the  generalization  above  is  not  thereby  endangered. 

"  Cf.  honos  homini  Trin.  697,  7neque  honorem  illi  habere  True.  591,  mihi 
honores  suae  domi  habuit  maxumos  Pers.  512,  habuit,  me  habere  honorem 
As.  81. 

'*To  be  sure,  they  owe  their  position  in  spme  measure  to  metrical  con- 
venience: cf.  vss.  12,  21,  30  of  the  same  prologue. 

"It  is  not  likely  that  the  following  example  involves  separation  (but 
note  vinum  Chium  in  Cure.  78) : 


"But  est  domicilium  in  CD.    Note  also  hostium  (ost—)  BCD. 


'8) 

ubi  tu  Leucadio,  Lesbio,  Thasio,  Chio, 
vetustate    vino    edentulo    aetatem    inriges. 


(Poen.    699) 


2U 


Wniversitij  of  Califormm  PtMfeations.   [<^'lass  Phil. 


Vol.  1]       Prcscoff.— Thought   (nul   Verse   in   Plautus. 


235 


Xor  can  I  be  sure  that  my  iinderstan diner  of  the  next  ease  will 
prove  eonvinein-  The  adjective  mufuos  is  occasionally  sepa- 
rated in  expressions  of  the  ideas  of  borrowinij  and  lendinir:  in 
two  of  the  cases  the  adjective  follows  the  noun,  in  one  the  adjec- 
tive precedes.  For  purposes  of  comparison  I  include  them  all 
here,  although  the  former  belong  in  the  previous  section: 

tecumque  oravi  iit  numrnos  sescentos  mihi 
(lares  iitondos   niutuos.      (Pers.   117) 

setl  f|uinfiup  invent  is  opus  est  argenti  minis 
mutiiis,  fjuas  ho.lie  reddani:    (Ps.  732) 

8e<l  potes  mine  nnitiiani 
drachuniarn  dare  unani  mihi,  quam  eras  re.Mam  til)i?     (Ps.  85) 

The  frequent  collocation  of  this  adjective  with  dare  and  rogare 
in  conunercial  phrases  may  have  given  it  a  substantival  force 
corresponding  to  the  English  **loan'^  so,  for  example,  exnrare 
nnifuom  in  Pers.  43  (with  nrgentum  far  distant  in  39)  suggests 
that  the  adjectival  force  is  approximately  substantival^^'and 
eventually  this  substantival  usage  becomes  established:  even  in 
Plautus  we  have  tide  si  pmJoris  egeas,  sumas  mutuom  (Amph. 
819).  If  this  is  granted,  the  separation  becomes  innocuous,  even 
if  the  adjective  precedes;  the  alliteration  in  the  last  example 
perhaps  adds  to  the  unity  of  the  verse,  but  no  such  additional 
feature  is  necessary  if  mutuam  is  in  effect  appositional. 

The  cases  hitherto  discussed  have  shown,  in  varying  degrees, 
consciousness  of  verse-unity  and  conservation  of  it  to  som'e  ex^ 
tent  in  spite  of  the  separation  of  the  attributives.  The  exam- 
ples we  have  now  to  consider  do  not  so  plainly  point  to  a  sensi- 
tiveness  to  the  identity  of  verse-  and  sense-unit.  There  are 
often  extenuating  circumstances,  but  in  most  cases  we  must 
admit  that  the  separation  involves  a  distinct  interniption  of  a 
thought-unit  with  less  effectual  employment  of  the  features  that 
in  other  examples  reinforced  the  unity  of  the  verse.     Prominent 

••Cf.  Pa.  294: 

nullus  est  tibi  quern  roges 
mutuom  argentumf-^quin  nomen  quoque  lam  interiit  '*  mutuom." 

As.  248  and  Trin.  1051  also  show  mutuos  in  a  sense  approximately  sub- 
stantival.    The  various  forms  of  facere  mutuom  are  hardly  parallel. 


among  these  is  a  group  of  superlatives  of  cretic  measurement 
which  may  owe  their  separation  in  part  to  metrical  convenience; 
occasionally  there  result  sound-effects  that  may  have  conduced 
to  separation,  but  in  general  the  violation  of  unity  is  unmistak- 
able, and  the  palliating  or  counteracting  features  are  superficial. 
It  is,  however,  always  to  be  rememl)ered  that  the  cases  of  sepa- 
ration are  extremely  few  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  occur- 
rences of  a  given  adjective  at  the  end  of  a  verse.  The  most 
important  member  of  this  group  is  majrumus,  which  w^e  have 
already  found  separated,  but  following  its  noun  and  standing 
at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse  with  emphasis.  This  adjec- 
tive appears  86  times  in  Plautus:  39  times  at  the  end  of  the 
verse,  38  times  in  the  interior,  nine  times  at  the  beginning.  It 
i.s  not  likely  that,  under  normal  conditions,  the  position  at  the 
verse-end  is  prompted  by  a  desire  to  emphasize  f^  generally  un- 
emphatic  words  occupy  this  position.  A  collection  of  all  the 
examples  of  the  phrase  opere  maximo,  \\\i\\  and  without  sepa- 
ration, will  illustrate  the  feature  of  metrical  convenience  r*^ 

nam  rex  Seleucus  me  opere  oravit  niaxunio  (M.  G.  75) 
nunc  te  hoc  orare  iussit  opere  maxumo   (Most.   752) 
l)ater  Calidori  opere  edixit  maxumo   (Ps.  897) 
rogare  iussit  ted  ut  opere  maxumo   (St.  248) 

iussit  maxumo 
opere  orare,  ut  patreni  aliquo  absterreres  modo,  (Most.  420) 

non  hercle  vero  taceo.  nam  tu  maxumo 
me  opsecravisti  opere,  Casinam  ut  poscerem  uxorem  mihi  (Gas.  992) 

Cf.  Terence, 

Thais  maxumo 
te   orabat    opere,   ut   eras   redires.      (Eun.    532) 

•*Such  a  position  for  emphasis  is  occupied  at  least  once  by  the  very 
words  with  which  we  are  now  concerned: 

ego  miserrumis  periclis  sum  per  maria  maxuma 
vectus,  capitali  periclo  per  praedones  plurumos 
me  servavi,    (Trin.   1087) 

•*  The  significance  of  the  cases  of  separation  is  somewhat  more  appar- 
ent when  we  note  that  magno  opere,  maiore  opere,  nimio  opere,  tanto  opere 
are  never  separated  in  Plautus  by  the  verse-end. 


ri 


236 


University  of  CaliffmM  Pnhlieatiotis.   [Class  Phil. 


It  IS  evident  that  opere  is  attracted  to  orare  and  opsccrare,  but 
so  far  as  the  thouc^ht  is  concerned,  there  is  nothinj?  to  diminish 
the  violence  in  the  division  of  maxumo  opere  in  :\rost.  420,  or 
the  division  of  the  Jarj^^er  word-fifroiips  in  Cas.  992  and  Eun. 
532.  And  in  the  first  of  the  two  following  cases  of  maxumus 
there  are  no  sound-effects  to  relieve  the  separation ;  in  the  sec- 
ond, separation  brin-s  to-ether  m-  and  a-sounds;  these  are,  how- 
ever,  from  lyrical  passajres: 

ubi  quisque  institerat.  eonei.lit  erepitu.  il.i  i.escio  (juis  maxuma 
voce  exclaniat:    (Aniph.   10(>3) 

quam  malum?  qui.l  maehiner?  (lui.l  comminiscar?  maxumas 
nugas  iueptus  iiicipisso."^  haereo.      (('apt.  531) 

Cf.  Terence, 

Geta,  hoiiiiiicin   maxiuiii 
preti"*  te  esse  hoUie  iiulicavi  aiiiiuo  meo;    (Ad.  891) 

Consideration  for  sound  and  the  artificial  arrangement  of  words 
may  have  played  some  part  in  the  structure  of  these  verses: 

Alexandrum   magnuni   atqiie    Ajratl.oclem   aiunt    maxumas 

duo  res  gessisse:   quid  milii   fiot   tertio, 

qui  solus   facio   facinora   inmortalia?      (Most.    77i5) 

The  a-sounds  are  prominent  in  the  first  verse;  magnum  and 
nwxvmas  are  perhaps  not  unintentionally  put  in  the  same  verse: 
duo,  interlocked  between  maxumas  and  res,  is  in  contrast  with 
tertio  at  the  other  extreme  of  the  same  verse."' 

Another  superlative  opt  urn  us  occurs  at  the  end  of  the  verse 
in  one  third  of  the  total  number  of  its  occurrences;  in  only  one 
case  does  its  position  result  in  separation: 

''Ineptias  incipisse  is  the  reading  of  the  MSS. 

"Contrast  with  this  the  stereotyped  position  at  the  end  of  the  verse 
without  separation,  of  minimi  preti,  parvi  pnti,  magni  preti,  quantivis 
prett  m  Plautus  (cf.  Rassow,  de  Plauti  substantivis  s.  v.  prelium  GS  =  JHB 
Suppllxl.  12  (1881)  710).  ' 

"Cf.  altera  .  .  .  altera,  Aul.  195;  mperi  .  .  .  inferi,  Aul.  368;  miserius 
.  .  .  digmus,  Bacch.  41;  malefactorem  .  .  .  beneficum,  Bacch.  395;  meam  .  .  . 
tuam,  Capt.  632.  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  a  couplet  in 
bacchiac  verse: 

sed  vero  duae,  sat  scio,  maxumo  uni 

populo  cuilubet  plus  satis  dare  potis  sunt,   (Poen.  226). 


Vol.  1]       Prescott,— Thought  and  Verse  in   Plautus.  237 

sed,  ere.  optuma 
vos  video   opportunitate  ambo  advenire.      (Ep.   202) 

With  this  should  be  compared 

optuma  opportunitate  ambo  advenistis.     (Merc.  964) 

Next  in  significance  to  the  rarity  of  the  separation  is  the  fact 
attested  by  the  verse  from  the  Merc,  that  the  initial  sounds  op-1 
v—v—op  are  the  external  manifestation  of  unity  which  is  cer- 
tainly interrupted  by  the  end  of  the  verse.  Such  a  case  is  far 
from  disturbing  Leo's  theory.  Such  interlocked  complexes  of 
thought  and  sound,  which  are  characteristic  of  the  language, 
must  burst  the  bonds  that  confine  units  of  thought  within  the 
verse ;  that  they  do  it  so  rarely  is  significant. 

A  third  superlative  that,  like  optumus,  stands  at  the  end  of 
the  verse  in  one  third  of  the  total  number  of  its  occurrences  is 
pi u rum  us.  The  singular  and  the  plural  of  this  word  are  perhaps 
on  a  different  footing:  the  plural  is  conceivably  analogous  to  the 
separation  of  omnesr  so,  for  example,  in  this  case  of  plurumi 
in  the  interior  of  a  verse,  the  separation  seems  less  violent  than 
in  cases  of  the  singular:*^' 

plurumi  a<l  ilium  mo<lum 
periere    pueri    liberi    Carthagine.       (Poen.    988) 

Whether  this  is  true  in  the  case  of  the  following  feminine  plural 
is  not  at  once  patent  to  an  English  auditor: 

O  Gripe,  Gripe,  in  aetate  hominum  i)lurumae 

fiunt  transennae,  ubi  deeipiuntur  dolis.      (Rud.  1235) 

In  any  case,  the  singular  seems  at  first  to  be  rather  rudely  sepa- 
rated in 

miles  Lyconi  in  Epidauro  hosjiiti 

suo  Therapontigonus  Platagidorus  plurumam 

salutem  dicit.     (Cure.  429) 

Here  the  conventional  phrases  of  epistolary  address  run  along 
naturally  and  result  in  two  separations,  with  the  first  of  which 


on  n 


Cf.  below,  p.  258. 
••In  Eph.  391  pluruma  (pluruhium  MSS.)  is  predicative. 


238 


University  of  California  Puhlications.   [Class  Phil. 


we  are  not  now  concerned,  but  verse-unity  is  siigforested  in  the 
alliterative  colliiaration  of  Platagidorus  plurumam:  the  effect  is  as 
if  plunimam  were  an  adverb  and  salutem  (licit  no  more  than 
salvere  iuhet,  as  the  foUowing  example  suj^gests: 

erum  at(iue  servoin  pluniimim  Pliilto  iiibot 
salvere,   Leslionk'nni   et    .Stsisiiiuiin.      (Triii.   435) 

in  which,  ajrain,  we  have  similar  alliteration— /;/?//v/wn/w  PInlfo. 
pronounced  Pilto.     So,  too,  our  explanation  is  confirmed  bv 

niultjmi   nie  tihi 
salutem    ius«it    Theraixmti^omis    dicere     (Cure.    420) 

ill  which,  as  in  the  other  cases,  mid f am  mr  are  attracted  to  each 
other,  while  salutem  iussit  like  sahtl( m  divit  and  salvtn  stands 
at  the  bej^inninji:  of  the  second  vci-sc.""* 

The  adjective  parvoliis  occurs  thirteen  times:  nine  times  at 
the  end  of  a  verse,  three  times  with  separation.  Of  these  three, 
one  belongs  in  our  examples  of  adjectives  foUovving  their  nouns, 
and  is  a  mere  afterthought: 

nam  inihi  item  jjnatae  diiae 
cum  iiutriee  una  sunt   surruptae  parvolae.      (Poen.   1104) 

The  other  two,  both  from  the  same  i)lay  and  of  the  same  situa- 
tion, are  cases  of  violent  and  absolute  separation:"'** 

nam   v^o   illane   olim  quae   hine   flens  abiit    parvolam 
puellam  proiectam  ex  aii^iportu  sustuli.     (Cist.  123) 

nam  mihi  ab  hippodromo  memiui  adferri  parvolam 
puellam  eamque  me  mihi  supi)onere.     (Ciat.  ')o2) 

A  comparison  with  three  cases  in  Terence  justifies  us  in  attrib- 
uting the  separation  in  large  measure  to  metrical  convenience: 

ibi  tum  matri  j)arvolani 
puellam  tlono  quidam  mercator  tledit    (Euu.   108) 


Vol.  ij       Prcscott.-rhought   and   Verse   in   Plautus. 


239 


•On  the  other  han<l,  without  separation,  but  again  in  alliterative  col- 
ligation in 

Veneri  tlicito 
nuiltam    meis    verbis    salutem.       (Poen.    406) 

"•The  alliteration,  interrupted  by  the  verse-end,  in  parvolam  \  purllam 
has  no  significance,  for  it  is  accidental:  the  range  of  expressions  for  the 
idea  is  too  limited  to  admit  our  regarding  it  as  genuine  alliteration. 


nisi  si  ilia  forte  quae  olim  periit  parvola 

soror,  hauc  se  intendit  esse,  ut  est  audacia.     (Eun.  524) 

ah,  stultitiast   istaec,  non  pu.lor.  tarn  ob  parvolam 
rem  j.aene  e  patria!      (A<l.  274) 

In  the  sec-..n,l  example  sense  as  well  as  sound  mav  connect  ncriit 
TT  V?""'  in  infancy."  an,l  in  the  last  there  are  sound- 
ettects  that  reassert  the  unity  of  the  verses.'" 

So  «u,ch  for  this  frroup  of  cretie  adjective^;-  the  followin-. 
part^.-^l„ai  adjectives  may  be  more  easily  separable  because  of 


10  u. 


«om..thi„K  niiKht  l,e  said  for  a  substantival  force  in  parvola    though 

;Un;;;"-:t'-  ;;;:i;.^;v"  '"^'  ^--'^ '-  '--■  -'■  ^'^^ 

l>arvola 
hinc   est   abrepta; 

l^ir   .    /  """™'  "''J'™"<^'»  '"   it   i"   Plautus  is  in   Poen    896 

l.S4(..  hut  ,t  .s  not  ...rtain  in  oitl.cr  place;  nor  is  Ps.  783  a  clear  eas^'     Cf' 
Lorenz.  I'seu.lolus,  Kinleitung  ,,.  .53.  '''^-     ^*- 

to   LTf'Lor  t''.."""  ""'•"'''"'   "   "■'"'^"   ""^*""^'"   convenience   seems 
o    he   a    factor   ,„    the   separation,   I    „,ay   call   attention    to   a   closely   re- 
late,    pheno>„ono„   which,   it   seems   to   „,e,   is   not   always   recoen.Ve  1       Is 
I'l?;?''^'''   ''"^"■;"  ;"  "'^'-"  "-->«  "'   the  vJrse  ZTtLu, 

groo^es,  as  a  ,,.sycholog,st  might  express  it?  For  exan.ple  in  the 
cases  abo,.  „.  which  .a,u,r,n  ,„ssU  or  dieU,  or  saUere  /„6  "  an'  ar  he 
P«s,fo„  of  ..Ulnn  a,„l  salvere  (rather  regularly  at  the  V^ginnZof  tZ 

z:;">:r  r-  "f"-"'  ^''-  --'"^  ^  att^rihutea^iiZcarcU': 

mm,    a  one     .t   .s  to  son.e  extent  a  matter  of  habit.     A  better  examnle 
-  furnished  by  these  examples  from  Euripi,les's  Iphigeneia  i.rTauris      ' 

ro?fi,/T€nv  Tin  ^earhv  ek  vaov  ?m3eIv 

(lyn/fin  Trdaac  7rftoa<pi(tnvTe  firixavd^.      (ill) 

a}a/.fx  Wdr/vuv  r'  ii}Knhi6fwnni  xftovi.      (977) 

avv  roic  ^hoiaiv  oixcTai,  (rqirbv  ftmc; 

aya?//  exovaa-  dohn  fJ'/>  mOdpfinra.      (1315) 

TO  f  ohpnvov  Treafifin,  rf/g  Aide  KOfjr/c 

l3or/rtr      (1384) 

Those  of  us  who  are  reluctant  to  admit  metrical  convenience  as  a  factor 
may  find  some  comfort   in  emphasizing  the  part   that   mental  habit  pl^' 
in  the  regular  appearance  of  certain  words  in  the  same  part  of  the  verse 

ttrntn^Mnteir"  '"^^  '''""'  ^^  "^^  ^^  ^^^  '''  ^^^^^^^^  '^  '^'^  ^^^^ 


240 


University  of  CwMf&rnia  PuMie&tious.  [Class  phil. 


I 


the  peculiar  nature  of  the  adjective,  and  the  bahuiced  isolation 

of  pater: 

salve,  lispenite  Tioy)is 
pater,  te  coniplecti  nos  sine. — cui»ite  atque  exspectate 
pater,  salve.     (Poen.  1259) 

The  ^reetinjjs  are  from  two  sisters  with  artificial  variation  of 
the  conventional  terms:  the  imperatives  and  vocatives  are  ar- 
ranjred  in  ehiastic  order;  patrr  stands  at  the  beirinnin?  of  each 
verse,"  leavin«r  the  adjectives  at  the  end  in  eacli  case.  The 
collocation  is  the  same  as  in 

o  salve,  insperate  niultis  annis  post  queni  conspicor 
f rater,  (Men.  1132) 

according'  to  ^FS.  B,  l)ut  the  other  members  of  the  Palatine  fam- 
ily (and  A  apparently  a*;rees)  introduce  a  chauLC*'  of  speakers 
before  frater.  Even  if  we  a^jree  with  the  editors  in  followini? 
A  and  the  majority  of  the  Palatine  family,  the  isolation  of  the 
participial  vocative,  ami  the  relative  clause  that  modifies  it,  may 
point  to  a  certain  detjjree  of  separability  in  the  participial  adjec- 
tives insperate,  ciipite,  and  exspectate  in  our  passatje.'^ 

There  remains  a  small  *rroup  of  cases  in  which  verse-unity 
seems  to  be  lost  sight  of,  and  which  are  alike  in  that  the  adjec- 
tives are  of  four  syllables  metrically  convenient  at  the  end  of 
the  verse: 

pol  istic  nie  hand  centesuniam 
partem  lauilat  quam  ipse  nieritust  ut  laiuletur  laiulihus.     (C'apt.  421) 

haiul  ct'iitcsuinam 
partem  ilixi  atque,  otium  rei  si  sit,  possum  expromere.     (M.  (i.  7(33) 

si  (piisqiiani  liuiic  liberal! 
causa  manu  assoreret,  (Cure.  490) 

ne  epistula  quidem  ulla  sit  in  aedibus 
nee  eerata  adeo  tabula;  et  si  qua  inutilis 
pietura  sit,  earn  vendat:    (As.  763) 

Ccntcsumus  occurs  only  in  these  two  places  in  Plautus;  liherali 
causa  occurs  in  the  interior  of  the  verse  in  Poen.  906,  96-4,  1102, 


Vt.  above,  p.  223,  n.  35. 

Ferger,  de  vocativi  usu  Plautino  Terentianoque  32,  defends  the  read- 
,    ing  of  B  in  Men.  1132  on  the  ground  that  insperate  is  not  found  in  Plau- 
tus without  an  accompanying  noun. 


Vol.  1]       Prescott.—Thought   and   Verse   in  Plaufus.  24l 

and  so  lihrali  manu  in  Cure.  668,  709:  huifiUs  occurs  again  in 
Ps.  704  and  at  the  end  of  the  verse.  But  the  separation  in  these 
cases  is  not  entirely  a  matter  of  length  and  metrical  conveni- 
ence: the  collocation  of  the  other  words  in  the  sentence  is  so 
fixed  ])y  almost  inviolable  laws  that  it  is  not  surprising  that 
the  adjcH-tive  should  escape  into  the  second  verse.  For  to  any- 
body familiar  with  Plautus  and  with  Wackernagers  study 
of  the  position  in  the  sentence  of  enclitic  words  it  will  be 
clear  that  the  collocations  j^ol  istic  me,  si  quisquam  hanc,  and 
et  si  qua  are  to  a  considerable  extent  fixed  in  the  usage  of  the 
language:  the  increased  difficulty  of  conserving  verse'unity  is 
obvious."* 

The  very  fact  that  in  some  15,000  verses  so  few  cases  of  sepa- 
ration occur— and  this  in  spite  of  the  fondness  of  the  Roman 
for  interlocked  complexes  which  would  seem  to  make  the  preser- 
vation of  verse-unity  difficult— clearly  attests  the  sanity  of  Leo's 
contention.     The  further  fact  that  in  so  many  of  the  few  cases 
of  separation  the  unity  of  the  verse  reasserts  itself  through  asso- 
ciation  of  thought  or  sound  confirms  in  large  measure  his  re- 
quirement of  special  justification  when  separation  does  occur. 
The  existence  of  a  few  cases  in  which  unity  is  not  apparent  need 
not  affect  the  validity  of  the  principle ;  the  essential  unity  of  the 
verse  so  far  as  attributive  adjectives  are  concerned  is  clear  at 
once  from  comparison  with  a  tragedy  of  Euripides  or  of  Seneca 
—clearer  than  any  statistics  could  make  it. 

IV. 

the  large  proportion  of  possessive  adjectives  among  the  cases 
of  separation  deserves  an  explanation.  They  represent  one- 
fourth  of  the  total;  indeed  if  we  eliminate  cases  of  merely  ap- 
parent separation  the  proportion  would  be  even  larger. 

No  small  part  of  the  explanation  is  found,  of  course,  in  the 
relative  frequency  of  the  possessive  adjectives  in  the  conversa- 

"In  As.  763  ff.  there  is  perhaps  some  effect  in  the  position  of  the 
nouns  epistula,  eerata  tabula,  pietura  at  or  near  the  beginning  of  suc- 
cessive verses.  The  resumptive  earn  may  also  reinforce  the  unity  of  the 
last  verse. 


Wniversiitj  of  Califonua  pKhliratlons.   [<'lass  Phil. 


'I 


tional  Latin  of  the  plays.     That  anion tr  8000"'  castas  of  posses- 
sive adjectives  only  about  60  should  be  separated   from  their 
substantives  by  the  verse-end  may  seem   in    itself  some  slight 
tribute  to  verse-unity  rather  than   a  contravention  of  it.     Yet 
the  ol)vious  viohMice  to  the  unity  of  thoujrht,  at  least  from  an 
Enjrlish  standpoint,  in  dividing;  "thy  son"  between  two  verses 
makes  even   a   small    percentatre   seem    inexj)lieably   larye.     We 
nuist  !iot,  however,  allow  our  Enjrlish  standpoint  to   iuHuence 
lis.     The  separation  of  "thy  son"  by  the  verse-end  in  f:n«;lish 
i.'^  not  altonrother  analoi^'ous  to  the  s(»paration  of  filius  from  funs. 
For  in   the    Latin   sentence   the  phrase  correspond in«r  to   "thy 
son"  is  much  less  of  an  iiulei)endent  unit  of  thou«;ht  than  in 
the  Enjrlish  sentence:  in  the  Latin  sentence,  larj^ely  because  the 
possessives  mens,  tiios,  snos  are  irenerally  unemphatic  and  often 
without  accent  in  the  phrase-  or  sentence-unit,  the  division  l)y 
the  vei-se-eml  does  not  separate  "thy"  from  "son,"  but  rather 
divides  a  lar.irer  unit  of  thou-ht.     It  is  elear,  for  example,  that 
iuos    emit    ardis    filius     (Most.    070)     constitutes    a    unit    of 
thought;    and   so,    too,    does    aidis   filius    \    tuos   emit    (Most. 
637,  cf.  997).     The  separation  in  this  latter  case,  if  any  is  felt, 
h  rather  that  of  ardis  filius  from  tuos  emit  than  merely  of  filius 
from  tuos.     Furthermore,  since  the  ix)s.sessive  adjectives  meus, 
tuos,  suos  are  *renerally  unemphatic  in  our  examples,  it  is  pos- 
sible and  likely  that  in  this  example  tuos  was  absorbed  in  the 
rhythmical  unit  tuos  vmit  without  much  consciousness  of  any 
violence  in  separating  tuos  from  filius  by  the  verse-end;  the  fre- 
quency and  ease  with  which  words  intervene  between  these  pos- 
sessives and  their  substantives  (quite  apart  from  separation  by 
the  verse-end)  nuiy  support  this  contention.     Even  if  the  pos- 
sessive had  some  slight  stress  upon  it,  as  in  the  beginning  of 
trochaic  verses  and  rarely  in  an  iambic  verse   (filiam   \  sudm 
despondit,   Cist.   600),   certainly  such  stress  was  subordinate: 
suam,  despite  some  quantitative   prominence,   must   have   been 
merged  in  the  surrounding  words.^«    Of  course  it  may  be  ob- 

"Nilsson,  1.  c.  12. 

"  Some  such  idea  is  expressed  by  Appuhn,  1.  e.  63.  but  in  a  way  that 
^ails  to  account  for  trochaic  verses  and  Cist.  600.     I  hope  it  is  clear  that 


Vol.  1]       Prcscott.— Thought   and   Verse   in   Plaufus. 


243 


jected  that  the  thought  would  lead  us  to  merge  it  in  the  preced- 
ing, rather  than  in  the  following  word,  in  the  example  quoted, 
and  that  the  possessive  is  enclitic,"  not  proclitic.  For  our  pres- 
ent i^urpose  it  is  enough  that  the  possessive  is  absorbed  in  a 
larger  iniit,  and  that  the*  separati(m  by  the  verse-end  is  by  no 
means  the  same  as  that  involved  in  the  division  between  verses 
of  the  English  possessive  and  its  substantive.'*' 

In  the  second  place  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  possessives  are 
subject  to  at  least  one  influence  from  which  ordinary  attribu- 
tives are  free:  Kampf,"»  and  others  before  him,  observed  the 
attraction  of  pronominal  words  to  one  another.  Such  attrac- 
tion appears  in  a  relatively  small  luunbcr  of  our  examples  :*»« 

oani  nieae  |  uxori  (Men,  480), 

illain  quae  nieani  |  gnatam  (Cist.  .147), 

tu  mihi  tua  |  oratione  (As.  112), 

ad  illam  quae  tuom  |  .  .  .  filiuni  (Bacch.  406), 

fores  coiiscrvas  |  meas  a  te  (As.  386), 

the  paragraph  above  is  not  intended  to  offer  any  complete  explanation 
of  the  separation,  but  only  to  suggest  that  the  separation,  such  as  it  is, 
is  probably  by  no  means  so  harsh  as  it  appears  to  us.  The  point  that  I 
wish  to  make  is  that  the  unen!i)hatic  possessive  has  very  little  independent 
force  and  is  not  merely  **  swallowed  up  "  (Appuhn)  metrically,  but  ab- 
sorbed in  larger  thought-units  even  of  ordinary  speech. 

"Lindsjiy,  Latin  Language  167;  but  cf.  E.  Wallstedt,  Fran  Filologiska 
Foreningen:  Sprakliga  Uppsatser  HI  (Lund  1906)  189  ff;  also  Radford, 
Trans.  Amer.  Phil.  Assoc.  36  (1905)  190  ff.  Neither  of  these  last  two 
articles  was  accessible  to  me  in  time  to  use  them  for  the  discussion  above. 

"  The  fact  that  the  genitive  case  is  used  in  appositional  relation  to  the 
possessives  (e.g.  mra  iinius  opera)  might  lead  to  the  suggestion  that  the 
separation  is  not  more  serious  than  that  of  a  possessive  genitive.  This 
would  be  a  helpful  suggestion  if  the  possessive  genitive  in  Plautus  were 
regularly  or  even  frequently  separated  from  its  noun  by  the  verse;  cases 
do  occur  (e.  g.  Bacch.  901,  Rud.  1079,  Cist.  544),  but  rarely;  and  the 
possessive  genitive  with  j^ater,  uxor,  filius,  mater,  which  are  the  nouns  most 
frequently  appearing  in  our  cases  of  the  separated  possessive  adjective, 
is  in  Plautus  almost  inseparable  from  its  noun  even  by  intervening  words 

"  Kiimpf ,  1.  c.  16  ff. 

**A  few  cases,  though  too  few  to  be  significant,  of  a  verse-end  inter- 
vening l^etween  pronominal  words  thus  combined  are  worth  noting:  tua  |  me 
Cas.  279-280,  meam  \  me  Cist.  98-99,  me  \  meam  Ep.  480-481,  mea  |  meae 
M.  G.  738-739,  se  \  suamque  Trin.  109-110,  tihi  \  tua  Ps.  112-113. 


244 


University  of  CuHfornkt  Puhlieafions.   [Class  Phil. 


I 


f  ^ 


! 


filio  I  meo  te  esse  ainieum  et  ilium  intellexi  tihi   (Capt.  140), 
sine  dispendio  |  tuo  tuam  liliertam  (Poen.  163), 
servos  . . .  |  siios  niihi  (Most.  1087). 

If  alliteration  appears  in  sueh  cases,  it  is,  of  course,  incidental 
and  results  from  the  attraction :  it  is  not  a  primary  factor. 

WaekernajJTcl  ( Indog.  Foi-sch.  I,  406  ff.)  docs  not  include*  tncus, 
tuos,  suos  anion*,'  his  examples  of  enclitic  words  that  drift  to 
the  beginning  of  the  sentence.  There  are  cases  of  s<-paration 
that  might  have  been  affected  by  his  law,  but  they  arc  too  few 
to  suggest  the  direct  influence  of  his  law;  these  few  show  the 
enclitic  ixjssessives  immediately  following  the  introductory 
word;  they  seem  more  significant  when  other  words  intervene 
between  the  possessive  and  the  noun :  e.  g.  True.  355,  Aul.  733, 
St.  416.  Since  Wackernagers  law  affects  i)articularly  certain 
monosyllabic  and  dissyllabic  pronouns,  it  follows  that  in  (com- 
bination with  the  law  of  pronominal  attraction  there  results  in 
many  cases  the  necessity  of  placing  the  possessive  in  the  third 
or  fourth  place;  take,  for  example,  these  two  cases,  one  of  sepa- 
ration, one  without  separation : 

contoris 
til  tiia  me  oratione,  miiHer,  quis(|uis  es.      (Tist.  r>09) 

profoeto  nemo  est  quern  iam  dehine  metuam  niihi 

ne  quill  nocere  possit.  eum  tu  mihi  tua 

oratione  omnem  aniinum  osten«listi  tuom.     (As.  Ill) 

To  say  nothing  of  other  features,  the  rule  of  collocation  that 
makes  tu  second  in  the  sentence,  in  combination  with  the  attrac- 
tion that  joins  tu  tua  me  and  tu  milii  tua,  uiuloubtedly  regulates 
to  a  considerable  degree  the  disposition  of  the  words ;  and  it  is 
clear  that  the  existence  of  such  laws  of  collocation  must  appear 
seriously  to  interfere  with  the  poet's  consideration  of  verse- 
unity,  at  least  in  many  cases. 

Such  laws  affect  the  spoken  language ;  if  Plautus  is  more  ob- 
servant of  them  than  of  verse-unity,  it  is  no  more  than  we  should 
expect  of  a  dramatic  poet  who  is  reproducing  the  conversational 
Latin  of  his  day.  The  same  general  truth  applies  to  ordinary 
attributives,  but  they  are  not  as  a  class  subject  to  thes?  particu- 


VoL.  1]       Pnscott.— Thought   and   Vvrsc   in  Plautus. 


245 


lar  regulations.  In  addition  to  the  observance  of  laws  control- 
ling the  arrangement  of  words  in  sj^ecch  the  poet  is  governed  by 
the  conditions  of  his  verse.  It  is  easy  to  overestimate  the  force 
of  metrical  convenience.  It  is  seldom  more  than  one  of  many 
factors.  But  it  may  hardly  be  denied  that  the  iambic  or  pyr- 
rhic  i>ossessives  found  a  comfortable  habitat  at  the  end«^  and  at 
the  beginning  of  certain  iambic  and  trochaic  verses.  Indeed, 
quite  apart  from  the  metrical  convenience  of  the  possessives  that 
do  not  involve  separation,  the  cases  of  separated  possessives  of 
iambic  or  pyrrhic  measurement  lead  to  two  conclusions: 

1)  in  all  cases  of  separation  in  which  mcus,  tuos,  or  suos  fol- 
lows a  substantive,  whether  with  or  without  intervening  words, 
the  possessive  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse  ;«2 

2)  in  all  cases  of  separation  in  which  7ncus,  tuos,  or  suos  pre- 
cedes a  substantive,  whether  with  or  without  intervening  wwds, 
the  possessive  stands  at  the  end  of  the  first  verse.'*^ 

The  exceptions  to  these  principles^*  only  test  their  validity. 
It  is  of  course  evident  that  in  the  cases  covered  by  the  first  rule 
there  is  no  reason  why  the  possessive  should  not  stand  at  the  end 
of  the  second  verse ;  such  a  position  is  unusual,  probably  because 
the  separation  by  intervening  words  is  thereby  abnormally 
great ;  an  example  from  Terence  is 

qui  turn  illam  amabant,  forte  ita  ut  fit,  filium 
perduxere   illue,  seeum   ut   una  esset,  meum.      (And.   80) 

Similarly  under  the  second  rule  there  is  no  reason  why  the  pos- 
sessive should  not  stand  at  the  beginning  of  the  first  verse ;  but 
here,  again,  such  position  is  unusual  probably  because  of  the 
extent  of  the  intervening  words;  an  isolated  example  is 

"  For  statistics  cf .  Nilsson,  1.  c.  37. 

•=Amph.  134,  135,  As.  387,  434,  Aul.  289,  Bacch.  880,  Capt.  141,  873, 
Cist.  586,  601,  Cure.  347,  430,  Ep.  391,  401,  482,  583,  M.  G.  543,  Most.  638, 
998,  1088,  Poen.  164,  192,  1375,  Ps.  483,  650,  850,  Rud.  743,  Trin.  1101, 
1144,  True.  293.  ' 

"  As.  16,  112,  785,  Aul.  733,  Bacch.  406,  777,  Cist.  184,  547,  772,  Ep. 
279,  Men.  420,  480,  518,  740,  M.  G.  563,  635,  799,  Rud.  1392,  St.  416.  Trin. 
1147,  True.  355. 

•*The  hiatus,  therefore,  after  the  first  word  of  Ps.   650  is  not  to  be 
cured  by  changing  suam  hue  to  hue  suam  (Bothe),  and  Trin.  141  becomes- 
suspicious. 


J«MiiiM 


!  =■ 


I  \ 


^^^  r}HVfrsif!f  ^f  California  PahJicafioHs.    [C'lass  Phil. 

iiieaniiie   hie    ^rnesilochus,    Xicobnli    filius. 
per  vim  iit  retiru^jit  imilierciii  ?     (Baeeh.   842) 

In  both  cMses  iho  rnro  |>ositir.n  is  jittcndod  hy  othor  features:  in 
the  first,  the  postponement  of  mrnnf  perhaps  su«:irests  the  pathos 
of  the  situation;  in  the  seeond,  emphasis,  alliteration,  and  eollo- 
eation  with  Itic  are  eontrihutory  factors.  Finally,  sueh  an  ex- 
ception to  these  rules  as  appears  i?i  the  followintr  example  is  due 
to  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  fonnula  and  the  srreater  eonveni- 
enee  of  ohsrrro  at  the  end : 

a«lsiim,  CallicleH:   jicr  tua  ohsocru 
genua,  lit  til  iHtiie  insipienter  factum  siipientor  feras     (True.  826) 

Cf.  Cure.  iVM),  where  per  tua  (j(  nua  h  (thsnro  edfi^niH  file 
ver.se,  and  Poen.  [1387],  where,  airain  at  the  end  of  the  verse, 
we  find  per  rgo  tua  tc  genua  obseero.^'' 

We  have  thus  noted  several  features  that  make  the  compara- 
tively large  numl)er  of  separated  {mssessives  more  easily  under- 
stood. As  in  the  case  of  ordinary  attributives,  there  are  occa- 
sionally special  conditions  which  emphasize  the  unity  of  the 
verse  in  spite  of  the  separation.  The  accidental  alliteration 
arising  from  pronominal  attraction  we  have  already  noticed, 
there  are  a  few  cases  of  genuine  alliteration: 

iibi  erit  empta,  ut  aliquo  ox  nrbe  amovcas;   nisi  qui. I  est  tua'' 
secus  sententia.     (Ep.  279) 

nam  homiiiem  servom  siios 
t1omiti>a  habere  oportet  oeulos  et  manus     (M.  G.  563) 

oeulos  volo 
meos  tlelectare  mumlitiis  meretriciis.     (Poen.  191) 

There  are  a  few  cases,  allied  to  those  of  pronominal  attraction, 
in  which  pronominal  words  are  not  immediately  juxtaposed  but 
are  grouped  together  in  the  same  verse: 


Vol.  1]       Prescott. —Thought  and   Verse   in   Plautus. 


247 


mea,   servavisti   me.      (Baech.   879) 


ah,  salus 


vel  ego,  qui  dudum  fili  eausa  coeperani 
ego  med  excmciare  animi,  quasi  quid  filius 

"Cf.  Langen,  Beitriige   zur  Kritik  u.  Erklaning   d.   PI.   335;    Kamp", 

J.      C.      ^dXm 


o  filia. 


nieus  deliquisset  me  erga  (Ep.  389)'* 

mea,  quou.  hanc  video,  mearum  me  absens  miseriarum  eommones;   (Rud.  742) 

In  the  following  example  meae  belongs  to  both  nouns: 

insc'itiae 
meae   et    stultitiae    ignoseas.      (M.    G.    542) 

The  possessive  adjectives  of  the  plural  pronouns  of  the  first 
and  second  persons  occur  naturally  with  much  less  frequency 
than  meus,  tuos,  suos,  and  cases  of  separation  are  proportion- 
ately fewer.  They  are  subject  to  fewer  special  regulations  and 
conditions:  they  are  not  enclitics:  metrical  convenience  does  not 
affect  their  position  so  significantly:  they  are  to  be  sure  subject 
to  the  principle  of  pronominal  attraction:" 

saluto  te,  vicine  Apollo,  qui  aedibus 

propinquos  nostris  accolis,  venerorque  te,   (Bacch.  172) 

tonstricem  Suram 
novisti  nostram?     (True.  405) 

qua  re  filia m 
eredidisti  nostram?     (Ep.  597) 

meritissumo  eius  quae  volet  faciemus,  qui  hosce  amores 
nostros  dispulsos  eompulit.     (As.  737) 

nam  meus  formidat  animus,  nostrum  tam  diu 
ibi  desidere  neque  redire  filium.     (Bacch.  237) 

In  these  cases  there  is  little  to  suggest  the  entity  of  individual 
verses.  The  possessive  and  its  noun  in  every  example  but  one 
bracket  other  words,  and  the  word-group  thus  formed  shows  no 
respect  for  verse-unity.  Such  word-groups  appear  in  very  sim- 
ple form  in  Altenberg's  examples  from  early  prose;  in  Plautus 's 
verse— we  may  not  here  enquire  into  the  causes— they  are  often 

"  Note  also  ego,  ego  med,  meus  at  or  near  the  beginning  of  successive 
verses. 

"  This  does  not  happen  to  appear  in   our  examples,  but  note   Terence 
Haut.  711: 

nt  quom  narret  senex 
voster  nostro  esse  istam  amicam  gnati,  non  credat  tameu. 


248 


VnimMty  of  Califomia  ruhlications.   [Class  Phil. 


Vol.  1]       prcscott.— Thought   and   Verse   in  Plautiis. 


249 


.■I 

Br 

f 
I 


ela})orate,  as  the  last  example  above  illustrates.^^  The  signifi- 
cant fact  is  that  in  spite  of  the  employment  of  such  interlocked 
phrases  the  poet  so  seldom  allows  them  to  escape  into  the  second 
verse.  It  is  true  that  when  the  ordinary  attributive  escapes, 
verse-unity  seems  more  often  to  reassert  itself  than  when  a  pos- 
sessive is  separated,  but  such  difference  as  there  is,  is  accounted 
for  by  the  relative  frequency  of  the  possessives,  the  unemphatie 
nature  of  most  of  them,  and  their  metrical  character,  which 
draws  some  of  them  to  the  extremities  of  the  verse.  Inasmuch 
as  nostcr,  vosfrr  are  subject  ordy  to  the  second  of  these  influ- 
ences, lack  of  emphasis  may  proi)erly  be  regarded  as  the  most 
important  factor  in  the  separation.^'*' 

"In  the  cases  of  wjcms,  iitos,  suos,  usually  the  possessive  is  separated 
from  its  noun  only  hy  a  verb  (Aul.  733-734,  Ps.  849-850).  There  are  a 
few  cases  of  more  elaborate  interlocking: 

ad   ilium  quae  tuom 
perdidit,  pessum  dedit  tibi  filiuin  unice  unicum.     (Bacch.  406) 

Special  effects  are  usually  produce.!  by  such  arnin^ements;  an   interesting 

case  is 

sicut  tuom  vis  unicum  giiatum  tuae 

superease  vitae  sospitem  et  superstitem,  (As.  16) 

Here  the  couplet  is  securely  linked  together  by  the  connection  between 
the  noun  of  the  first  verse  and  the  adjectives  of  the  second;  but  as  the 
connection  is  i)redicative,  the  unity  of  the  second  verse,  reinforced  by  the 
sound-  and  sense-effect,  is  paramount;  tuae  is  separated  from  vitae,  and 
the  separation  also  divides  the  group  tuae  superesse  vitae,  but  if  our  con- 
clusions above  are  correct,  the  weak  force  of  tuae  made  the  separation 
inoffensive  to  the  Boman.     Another  interesting  case  is 

quid   ais!   ecquam   scis    filium    tibicinam 
meum  aniaref     (Ps.  482) 

The  criss-cross  ecquam  .  .  .  filium  tibicinam  |  meum  brings  together  the  con- 
trasted objects  and  suggests  the  father's  indignation,  while  weum  is  too 
weak  to  interrupt  seriously  the  unity  of  the  verses  except  so  far  as  it  is 
already  interrupted. 

••  The  evidence  does  not  suffice  to  include  Greek  influence  as  an  addi- 
tional factor.  The  ways  of  expressing  the  possessive  idea  in  Greek  are 
more  varied,  and  the  conditions  inherent  in  the  words  are  different  from 
those  of  their  Latin  equivalents.  The  fragments  of  the  New  Comedy  offer 
almost  no  parallels  to  the  separation  in  Plautus.  In  Menander's  (307  K.) 
rb  yv€jdt  aavrdv  iariv^  av  ra  Kpayfiara  \  tUhJ^  ra  aavrol,  the  article  with  the  pos- 


V. 

These  special  conditions  also  affect  many  other  pronominal 
adjectives,  so  that  it  is  not  surprising  that,  for  example,  the 
demonstrative  pronouns  in  their  adjectival  usage  are  second,  in 
frequency  of  separation,   to  the  possessive  adjectives.     Again, 
however,  the  cases  of  separation,  viewed  with  reference  to  the 
total  number  of  occurrences  of  such  adjectives,  are  extremely 
few.     The  fact  that  these  words  are  pronominal  as  well  as  ad- 
jectival may  in  many  cases  have  mitigated  the  separation;  and 
the  effect  of  Wackernagers  law  and  of  the  law  of  pronominal 
attraction,  working  either  separately  or  in  common,  is  very  pro- 
nounced in  many  of  our  examples.     The  studies  of  Langen, 
Bach,   Kampf,   Kellerhof,   taken   in   connection   with   Wacker- 
nagel's  different  and  broader  point  of  view,  explain  the  position 
not  only  of  the  demonstratives,  but  of  the  determinative,  and 
of  the  indefinite  quis  and  its  derivatives.     If  these  w^ords  find 
their  natural  habitat  immediately  after  the  introductory  word 
of  the  sentence,  and  if  the  closeness  of  the  adjectival  relation  is 
something  much  less  binding  than  the  operation   of  Wacker- 
nagel's  law— as  is  quite  evident— it  is  remarkable  that  cases  of 
separation  are  so  infre(iuent. 

The  examples  that  follow  will  show  the  pronominal  word  in 
close  connection  with  the  introductory  word  of  the  sentence;  so 
nunc  is  immediately  followed  by  hoc: 

nunc  hoc  deferam 
argentum  ad  hauc,  quam  mage  amo  quam  matrem  meam.     (True.  661) 


sessive  genitive  may  suggest  an  amplifying  idea.  I  have  not  found  any 
cases  of  f/uoc,  aog  thus  separated.  In  Euripides,  however,  parallels  occur, 
but  they  are  less  frequent  than  in  Plautus ;  e.  g.  yvf^ag  rvpavvov  Kal  Kaai}  vr/rovg 
reKvoiq  I  kfinlg  (pvrtiuv;  (Med.  877,  possibly  with  emphasis  on  ifw'iq)^  rijv^  Ffi//v 
Koui^ofiai  I  }alii)v  a6f:A<^t/v  (Iph.  T.  1362),  oijxl  ri/v  kfiijv  \  tpnvla  voui^uv  x^'f^f- 
(Iph.  T.  o85),  irunav  elg  ai/v  avv  fttoig  ayd/fian  \  yalav  (Iph.  T.  1480).  So,  too, 
o6v  ...  I  irpdauTrnv  (Ion  925),  rrarpog  |  ror/^ot- (Ion  725,  Med.  746),  ^^wvaf  | 
Tflf  oac  (Ion  1271),  reuva  .  .  .  |  rdfi'  (Med.  792),  mlai  oulg  kvavriov  \  Adyoiaiv 
(Med.  1132).  On  the  whole,  inherent  features  of  the  Latin  words  are  more 
likely  to  have  been  the  dominant  influences,  although  the  agreement  points 
to  an  inherited  separability. 


250 


Wmmiflf  of  Califamm  FmhUvations.   [Class  Phil. 


nomen  Trinummo  fecit,     nune  hoc  voh*'  rogat 

wt  liceat  po8si«lere  banc  nomen  fabulani.     (Trin.  20)"* 

111  elo.se  as.s<x!iation  with  nui  or  with  si: 
nam  servom  misi  qui  illum'^''  sectari  Holet 

meum  jrnatuni:   is  ipse  banc  destinavit  fidicinam.      (Ep.  486) 
hi  qui  ilium  du«luni  conciliaverunt   inihi 
peregrinum   JSpartaeuin,    (I*oen.    709) 

nimis  ecastor  facinus  mirum  est.  qui  illr  c(»nlibitum  siet 

meo  viro  sic  me  ir.simulare  falso  facinus  tarn  malum.     (Amph.  858) 

qui  ad   ilium  def«'rat 
meum  erum,  qui  Athcnis  fuerat,  qui  hanc  amaverat,  (11.  G.  131) 

ut   si  illic   concriminatus  sit   advorsum   luilitem  » 

mens  conservos,  eam  vidisse  hie  cum  alieno  oscularier,  (M.  G.  242) 

nam  si  ille  arjjentum  prius 
hospes  hue  aflfert,  continuo  nos  ambo  extdusi  sumus.     (As.  360) 

e.lepol  ne  illic  pulchram  i»raedam  agat,  si  quis  illam  iuvenerit 
aulam  onustam  auri;    (Aul.  6lU)*» 

di  tibi  projdtii  sunt,  nam  hercle  si  istam  semel  amiseris 

libertatem,  hand  facile  in  eundem  rusum  restitues  locum.     (M.  G.  701) 

The  re^ndarity  with  whieh  the  separated  noun  in  these  and  many 
other  eases  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  seeond  verse,  with  many 
words  intervening'  between  it  and  the  pronominal  adjeetive— a 
mystery  followed  by  its  sohition— eonveys  the  effeet  of  a  per- 
sonal pronoun  and  an  appositive— 'him  ...  my  son,'*  etc. 
Such  interi)retation  may  be  purely  su!)jeetive,"*  but  in  any  case 
■^But  A  reads  ro.v  hoc. 

"^  On  this  verse  cf.  Leo,  Hemerkungen  iiber  plautinische  Wortstellung  u. 
Wortgruppen  430. 
"=*  ilium  qui  P. 

'=»  Features  reinforcing  the  unity  of  the  verse  are  apparent  in  the  pre- 
vious  example    {hospvs   hue),   and   here   particularly   where   aulam   onustam 
aun  are  undoubtedly  linked  together  by  a  unity  of  sound-eflfect :   cf.  Aul 
763,  617,  709,  809,  821. 

"  Cf.  Appuhn,  1.  c.  59.  In  a  case  like  the  following,  the  noun  with  its 
relative  clause  in  the  second  verse  seems  to  intensify  the  substantival  ef- 
fect of  the  demonstrative  in  the  first  verse: 

**  quam  facile  et   quam   fortunate  evenit   illi,   obsecro, 
nmlieri  quam  Iil)erare  volt  aniator. '^     (Ep.  243) 
Occasionally  this  effect  is  brought  out  explicitly: 

em  istic  homo  te  articulatim  concidit,  senex, 
tuos  servos.     (Ep.  488) 


Vol.  ij       Prescott, —Thought   and   Verse   in   Plautus.  251 

the  rather  constant  attraction  of  these  pronominal  words  to  the 
second  place  in  the  sentence,  without  regard  to  any  association 
with  the  noun,  was  certainly  the  usage  of  the  spoken  language; 
it  is,  therefore,  unlikely  that  there  was  any  violence  in  the  sepa- 
ration by  the  verse  comparable  to  the  division  in  English  of 
''that  .  .  .  son  of  mine."  :\rany  pronimiinal  adjectives  seem  to 
have  an  independent  force,  a  closer  affinity  with  other  words 
than  with  their  substantives:  in  any  consideration  of  verse-unity 
they  are  almost  non-existent. 

In  isolated  cases  the  separated  demonstrative  appears  in  com- 
pany with  nam  and  quid;  the  indefinite  quis  and  its  derivatives 
are  similarly  connected  with  the  introductory  particle  rather 
than  with  the  noun: 

nam  is  illius  filiani 
conicit  in  navem  miles  clam  matrem  suam,   (M.  G.  Ill) 

quid  hic"^  non  poterat  de  suo 
senex  obsonari  filiai  nuptiis?      (Aul.  294) 

sed  speculabor  ne  quis  aut  hinc  aut  ab  laeva  aut  dextera 
uostro  consilio  veiiator  adsit  cum  auritis  plagis.     (M.  G.  607) 

nam  cogitato,  si  quis  hoc  gnato  tuo 

tuos  servos   faxit,  qualem   haberes  gratiam?      (('ai>t.    711) 

nescio  quid  istuc  iiegoti  dicam,  nisi  si  quispiam**"  est 
Amphitruo  alius,  (Amph.  825) 

ibo  in  Piraeum,  visam  ecquae  advenerit 

in  portum  ex  Epheso  navis  mercatoria.     (Bacch.  235) 

ecquem 
recalvom  ad  Silanum  senem,  statutum,  ventriosum,  (Rud.  316) 

Some  examples  have  already  illustrated  the  juxtaposition  of 
pronominal  words;  in  the  following  case  (a  lyrical  passage) 
particles  and  pronouns  are  grouped  together  in  a  way  that  read- 
ers of  Plautus  will  admit  to  be  almost  inevitable;  if  there  is  any 
violence  in  the  separation  of  istam--whiGh  I  doubt— it  is  easily 

••Usually  punctuated— QMtdi'  hie  etc.,  but  unnecessarily,  I  think;  in  any 
case  the  stress  is  on  quid,  and  hie  is  not  the  first  word  of  the  sentence-unit, 
as  the  metre  shows. 

•^  There  is,  however,  nothing  regular  in  the  collocation  si  quispiam: 
see  the  examples  in  Prehn,  Quaestiones  Plautinae  de  pronominibus  indefinitis 
7-8. 


1  ihillJllJIlMllliJI 


_      •l»Jkli.'*j 


252 


University  of  California  Publkutions.   [^'lass  Phil. 


Wt 


forpriven  for  the  sake  of  scrlesfam,  salus,  Uiujuam  and  the  di- 
vision only  brings  into  relief  that  phrase: 

quid  estf  quo  niodo?  iani  quidom  hcrcle  ego  tibi  istain 
scelestani,  sc-elus,  linguani  a})8eidani.      (Aniph.  ;1.jG) 

There  are  other  examples  of  the  demonstrative  whieli  havd 
none  of  the  attendant  features  illustrated  above,  l>ut  which  for 
other  reasons  are  hardly  to  be  considered  as  disturbincr  the  unity 
of  the  verse.  Amons:  these  is  a  small  f?roup  of  cases  in  which 
the  noun  is  in  the  first  verse,  and  the  demonstrative  in  the  sec- 
ond verse  is  defined  in  a  relative  clause;  thus  the  second  verse 
simply  amplifies  the  meanin^,'  of  the  noun  in  the  first  verse: 

'  inimo  apud  trapezitam  situm  est 
ilium  quern  dixi  Lyconeni/   (Cure.  345) 

continuo  arhitretur  uxor  tuo  gnato  at<|ue  ut  fidu'inam 

iilaru  quani  is  volt  liberare,  quae  ilium  corrumpit  tibi, 

ulciscare  atque  ita  curetur,  usque  ad  mortem  ut  serviat.     (Ep.  2G7) 

oboluit  marsupjtium 
huic  istuc  quod  habes.     (Men.  384) 

So,  too,  with  iihm: 

<luxit  uxorem  hie  sibi 
eaiidem  quam  olim  virginem  hie  eompresserat,  (Cist.  177) 

There  is,  of  course,  no  more  se[>aration  in  these  cases  than  in'"' 

ued  optume  eecum  ipse  advenit 
hospes  ille,  qui  has  tabellas  attulit.      (Pers.  TAW) 

According  to  the  earlier  punctuation  with  a  comma  after  tiingu- 
larias,  the  following  verses  would  not  concern  us: 

ei8  indito  catenas  singularias 

istas,   maiores   quibus   sunt   iuncti   demito.      (Capt.    112) 

But  Bach  ( Studemund-Stud.  II  322)  offers  valid  reasons  for 
referring  istas  to  the  previous  verse;  such  a  separation  is  diffi- 
cult to  parallel,  and  Bach's  exam{)les  are  wide  of  the  mark. 
There  is,  to  be  sure,  a  contrast  suggested  by  the  juxtaposition 

"  Or  in 

quid  aisf  tu  nunc  si  forte  eumpse  Charmidem  conspexeris 

ilium  quem  tibi  istas  dedisse  commemoras  epistulas,    (Trin.  950) 


Vol.  1]       Pr^scott.— Thought   and    Verse   in   Plant 


us. 


253 


of  istas  and  maiorrs,  which  may  account  for  the  separation  but 
It  IS  certainly  very  vaguely  suggested;  the  demonstrative, 'if  it 
follows  the  noun  and  is  in  the  second  verse,  is  usually  attended 
by  features  that  more  evidently  justify  separation: 

quis  istuc  quaeso?  an  ille  quasi  ego?-is  ipse  quasi  tu.  (tum)senex 
ille  quasi  ego  ''  si  vis,"  inquit  ^'  quattuor  sane  dato  "  (St.  552) «» 

ei  rei  dies 
haec  i>raestituta  est,  proxunia  Dionysiaf 
eras  ea  (piidem  sunt.     (Ps.  58) 

tu  abduc  hosee  intro  et  una  nutricem  siniul 
iube  hanc  abire  hinc  ad  te.     (Poen.  1147) 

qua  pro  re  argentum  promisit  hie  tibi?— si  vidulum 
hunc  redegissem  in  potestateni  eius,  iuratust  dare 
niihi   talentum   magnum  argenti.      (Rud.   1378) 

Such  analogies  as  there  are  to  istas  according  to  Bach's  punctu- 
ation  must  be  found  in  these  examples:  the  contrast  in  ille  .  .  . 
ego,  haec  .  .  .  cras^  and  the  resumptive  force  of  hanc  and  its 
proximity  to  hinc—aU  these  features  reinforce  the  unity  of  the 
verses;  it  may  be  doubted  whether  in  the  last  example  hunc  .  .  . 
cius  is  a  feature  that  has  any  bearing  upon  the  separation  of 
hunc:  it  is  an  unusual  example  (cf.  Trin.  1123-4  according  to 
Lindsay's  Oxford  text),  and  the  nearest  parallel  to  Bach's  istas 
that  I  have  found. 

A  few  examples  do  not  admit  of  grouping  under  characteris- 
tics common  to  any  large  number  of  cases  :^"« 

postremo,  si  dictis  nequis  perduci  ut  vera  haec  credas 

mea  dicta,  ex  factis  nosce  rem.     (Most.  198)  • 

haec  sunt  atque  aliae  multae  in  magnis  dotibus 
incommoditates  sumptusque  intolerabiles.      (Aul.  532) 

an  te  ibi  vis  inter  istas  vorsarier 
prosedas,  pistorum  amicas,  (Poen.  265) 


-  The  whole  context  should  be  read  to  get  the  play  on  quasi  ego  and 
quasi  tu. 

"Contrast  with  this  verse  a  later  reference  in  the  same  play: 

nam  olim  quom  abiit,  argento  haec  dies 
praestitutast,  quoad  referret  nobis,  neque  dum  rettulit.     (Ps.  623) 

^<^Most.  618  should  be  included,  if  Leo^s  supplementary  readings  are 
correct. 


254 


Wmversity  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 


[  ■■11' 


mulier  profecto  natast  ex  ipsa  Mora; 

nam  qu'aevis  alia  quae  morast  aeque,  mora 

minor  ea  videtur  quam  quae  propter  mulieremst.     (M.  G.  1292) 

pro  di  immortales,  siniiliorem  mulierem 

magisque  eandem,  ut  pote  quae  non  sit  eadem,  (M.  G.  528) 

In  none  of  these  is  the  separation  violent;  effective  antithesis, 
long  words  grouped  in  one  verse,  alliteration,  the  combination 
of  associated  ideas— ea  .  .  .  quae  propter  mulieremst,'''  eandem 
.  .  .  eadem— are  compensating  features,  all  of  which  testify  to 
the  individuality  of  the  verse. 

The  freedom  with  which  the  relative  is  separated  from  its 
noun  in  Oscan  and  Umbrian  (Norden,  Kunstprosa  I  181  n.; 
Altenburg,  De  sermone  pedestri  Italorum  vetustissimo  530) 
suggests  that  the  relative  adjective  has  an  inherent  separability; 
and  in  several  of  the  cases  there  is  some  evidence  of  unity  de- 
spite the  separation : 

nimis  paene  nianest. — mane  quod  tu  oceeperis 

negotium  agere,  id  totum  proeedit  diem.     (Pers.  114) 

ut  in  tabellis  quos  consignavi  hie  heri 

latrones,  ibus  dcnumerem  stipendium.     (M.  G.  73) 

cui  servitutem  di  danunt  lenoniam 

puero,  atque  eidem  si  addunt  turpitudinem,  (Ps.  767) 

ita  ut  occepi  dicere,  ilium  quem  dudum  (e  fano  foras) 

lenonem  extrusisti,  hie  eius  vidulum  eccillum  (tenet).     (Rud.  1065) 

di  ilium  infelicent  omnes,  qui  post  hune  diem 

leno  uUam  Voneri  unquam  immolarit  hostiam,  (Poen.  449) 

qui  hie  litem  apisci  postulant  peiurio 

mali,  res  falsas  qui  impetrant  apud  iudieem,  (Rud.  17) 

quin  tu  tuam  rem  cura  potius  quam  Seleuci,  quae  tibi 

condicio  nova  et  luculenta  fertur  per  me  interpretem.     (M.  G.  951) 

ni  hercle  diflfregeritis  talos  posthae  quemque  in  tegulis 
videritis  alienum,^*'  (M.  G.  156) 

qui  omnes  se  amare  credit,  quaeque  aspexerit 
"^"^^^'••""  e"™  oderunt  qua  viri  qua  mulieres.     (M.  G.  1391) 


This  does  not  exhaust  the  effects:  note  mora  at  the  ends  of  succes- 
«ve  verses;  and  mora  at  the  end  of  the  second  verse  may  be  in  close  re- 

Similarly,  but  without  separation  by  the  verse  in 
quemque  a  milite  hoc  videritis  hominem  in  nostris  tegulis,  (M.  G.  160) 
*~  Mulierem  B,  mulieres  eum  CD. 


Vol.  1]       p,.,scott. -Thought  and  Verse   in  Plant  us. 


255 


The  uniformity  with  which  the  separated  substantive  stands  at 
the  beginning  of  the  second  verse  is  rather  striking:  the  mystery 
suggested  by  the  anticipatory  relatives  makes  its  solution  worth^ 
of  a  prominent  position;  the  resumptive  pronoun  in  many  cases 
makes  the  noun  at  home  in  its  verse  in  spite  of  separation- 
nfgot,um  .  .  .  id,  latrones  .  .  .  ibns,  puero  .  .  .  eidem,  lenonem 
■  .  .  cms:  other  evidence  of  unity  is  visible  in  the  fact  that  mali 
(Rud.  18)  belongs  as  much  with  the  qui  of  its  own  veree  as 
with  the  qui  of  the  preceding  verse,>«*  and  in  the  echo  mulier 
.  .  .  mulieres  (M.  G.  1392).'" 
Occasionally  the  interrogative  adjective  is  similarly  separated: 

quem  amplexa  sum 
hominem  f     (M.  G.  1345) 

cuia  a«l  aures 
vox  mi  advolavit?     (Rud.  332 )^«' 

The  indefinite  adjectives,  too,  now  and  then  appear  in  verses 
by  themselves;  such  a  separation  of  ncscio  quis  from  its  noun 
hardly  impairs  verse-unity;-'^  and  cases  of  aliquis  and  quis- 
quamr'  by  the  very  nature  of  the  words,  are  inoffensive: 

nam  sibi  laudavisse  hasce  ait  architectonem 

nescio  quem  exaedificatas  insanum  bene.     (Most.  760) 

atque  ego  illi  aspicio  osculantem  Philocomasium  cum  altero 
nescio  quo  adulescente.     (M.  G.  288) 

si  censes,  coquom 
aliquem  arripiamus,  prandium  qui  percoquat    (Merc.  579) 

ego  si  allegavissem  aliquem  ad  hoc  negotium 

minus  hominem  doctum  minusque  ad  hanc  rem  callidum,  (Ep.  427) 


r^n^ ^L^^^^^^^"""^^  Plautina:  de  figuris  sermonis  I  20.    The  position  of 

the  contrast"!"  ^''^'  '^''  ^'  '^"  ""'^'"^^"^  "^  '''  "^^«^'  ^""^^  «"* 

"'  For  the  repetition  of  mulier  cf. 

ecce  ad  me  advenit 
mulier,   qua   mulier   alia   nullast   pulchrior:    (Merc.    100) 

-Cm-  MSS.     But  the   same  or  similar  phrases  usually   occur  without 
separation:  Trin.  45,  Cure.  229,  Merc.  864. 
''"  Cf.  Ter.  Ad.  657-658. 
*"Cf.  Ter.  Ad.  716-717. 


« 


256  Universiftf  of  Califortiia  Puhlications.   [<^'lass  Phil. 

peiorem  ego  hoiiiinern  rnagis<|ue  vorsute  malum 

numquam  CMlepol  queiii<|uam  villi  quam  hie  est  Simia;    (Ps.  1017) 

neque  ego  taetriorem  iK'luam 
viJisse  me  iimqiiaiii  «]iH'iii(iiiani  qiium  te  cpiiseo.     (Most.  607) 

There  are  some  noteworthy  fi-ntiinvs:  th(^  hahineed  alliteration 
in  :\rere.  579-580;  in  Ep.  427  aliqunn  is  really  substantival, 
*  Homebody  elsi',"  and  the  next  vei-se  a  separable  element;  in 
the  two  cases  of  quisqunm,  the  rejrular  juxtai)osition  of  words 
ending?  in  -quam  is  illustrated. ^**» 

xl//r/V»«  when  separated,  is  in  effect  an  added  idea: 

at  ego  nunc,  Aniphitruo,  dico:   Sosiani  servom  tuom 

praeter  ine  alterum,  in<iua.n,  a.lvvniens  faeiam  ut  offemlas  domi,      (Amnh 
Ola)  ' 

eho  tu,  quam  vos  igitur  filiani 
nunc  quaeritatis  altrrani?     (Cist.  ()()2) 

The  separatii>n  of  altcniw  from  tautinn  in  the  followin-  couplet 
(omitted  in  A)  is  more  violent;  ef.  the  same  phrase  wmiin  the 
verse  in  Hacch.  1184,  an  anapestic  passasre,  and  in  fra^.  4  of 
the  Caeeus: 

immo  etiam  si  alt«M*um 
tantum   penlumluniHt,   [.enlani   [.otius  ,iuani   .sinam    (Ep.   518) 

So  in  this  case  of  tantulum: 

immo,  Chrywile,  em  non  tantalum 
unquam  intermittit  tempus  quin  eum  n«)minet.      (Bacch.  209) 

It  would  be  difficidt  to  prove  that  any  emphasis  is  attained  by 
the  position  of  these  cretic  words  at  the  end  of  the  verse  and 
by  their  separation  from  the  substantives,  but  the  context  in 
each  case  suj^gests  considerable  emphasis  upon  the  adjectives.^ >» 

^~This  hanlly  nee.is  further  evidence,  but  to  quote  only  one  plav  cf 
Men.  192,  400,  447,  518,  6i:i,  780,  959.  ^     * 

"•(^f.  the  separation  of  alius  in  St.  449-450;  Ter.  And.  778-779  (alia 
aliam),  Hec.  3fi5-36t>,  Ad.  52-53,  in  the  last  two  eases  preceding  the  noun 

"'  The  inherent  separability  of  these  pronominal  adjectives  is  confirmed 
by  the  same  phenomena  in  Greek:  ef.  above,  p.  215,  and  for  the  demonstratives 
Menander  567;  Philemon  7;  58;  Diphilus  30;  3;  f or  avr6,  Menander  117- 
118;  580;  748;  for  rig  Menander  325,  8;  for  «<Tr/i  Menander  393;  for  roaai^ra 
Menander  140;  for  aUw:  Menander  535,  3. 


V^L.  :]       Prcscm-~Thouiiht   aud   V<r,e   in   Plaufus. 


257 


VI. 


The  numerals,  also,  have  an  independent  existence  which  may 
account  for  the  cases  of  separation  ]>y  the  verse-end: 
scolosti,»rem  ego  anmini  argonto  faenori 
"".n<,uam  ullum  vidi  quaui  hie  mihi  annus  optigit.      (Most.  532) 


nullum"^  fecit.     (Bacch.  982) 


verbum 


,  ferat  epistulas 

Hims,  eas  nos  consignomns,  quasi  sint  a  patre:    (Trin.  774) 

chiao  orant,  (,uasi  nunc  meae  sunt-  e-io  or-nf    i     i  "^^  ^'''''' 

quasi  nunc  n.ae  sunt  vobis.     ^',^     ""'  '"'"^  ""^^^^^  ^-^"^-> 

Alexandrun.  magnum  atque  Agathoclem  aiunt  maxumas 

'ln<>   res  gessisse:    q„i<]    ,„ihi   fi^^   tertio 

qui  soJus  facio  faciiiora  inm(»rtalia.     (Most.  775) 

hie  .lico,  in  fanum  Veneris  qui  nuiliereulas 
duas  secum  adduxit,   (Rud.  128) 

occepere  aliae  mulieres 
duae  post  n-e  sic  fabulari  inter  sese  (Ep.  236) 

1         .  mulieres 

<luae  nmocentes  intus  hie  sunt,  tui  indigente^  auxili,   (Rud.  641) 

.  ,       ,  'J"''*  ''*^«  ^'n  Patriam  domum 

redn.se  vuleo  bene  gesta  re  ambos,  te  et  fratrem  tuom.     (St.  506) 

tnm  captivorum  qui.l  ducunt  s^^cum !   pueros,  virgines 
oinos,  ternos,  alius  quinque;    (Ep.  210)  ' 

iibi  saepe  causam  dixeris  pendens  advorsus  octo 
artutos,  au<laci8  viros,  valentis  virgatores.     (As.  564) 

ubi  saei.e  ad  languorem  tua  duritia  <le<leris  octo 
vahdos  lictores,  ulmeis  adfectos  lentis  virgis.     (As.  574) 

(atque)   auditavi  saepe  hoc  volgo  dicier, 
solere  ele]diantum  gravidam  perpetuos  decem 
esse  annos;   (St.  167) 

,  .  "f'"  quinquaginta  modo 

qua^ln^os  filios  l.ahet  atque  eq„i,|.,„  leetosLe  probro:    (Baceh.  973) 

<-uZut!^"  T^"'v    "'•''"•"  -P^-tio"  by  the  .erse  in  Baceh.  785   (by 
Tor  :'?|   85?'  ''•     """''  ""■•  ''"'"'  P'-^-J-g.  i«  separated  in 


iiiHi<iiyil«*iti»i 


258 


University  of  California  PubUcations.   [Class  Phil. 


PI 


The  last  paasage  is  from  a  cantieiim,  and  is  ascribed  by  Leo  to 
an  amplificator.  In  the  other  examples  some  attendant  features 
are  worth  noting?.  Respect  for  unity  is  shown  in  duae—duohus 
(St.  539),  duo—tertio  (Most.  775), »»3  and  in  the  isolation  of 
adjectives  and  nouns  in  the  second  verse  in  the  two  examples 
from  the  Asinaria.  In  most  of  the  cases  the  numeral  follows 
the  noun,  or  if  it  precedes  the  separation  brincrs  into  prominence 
important  elements  (As.  564,  574,  St.  168).  A  few  cases  of 
omms  are  in  place  here:"* 

hariolos,  haruspices 
niitte  onines;    (Anipli.   1132) 

quin  edcpol  servos,  aiieilla»  donio 
certum  est  oiiiuis  mittere  a»l  te.     (i'as.  521) 

tieartuasti  tlilaceravisti  atipio  opfs 

confecisti  omnes,  res  ac  ratioueH  meas:   (('a|»t.  672  ap.  Xonium) 

ita  res  divina  mihi  fuit:   res  serias 

onmis  extullo  ex  hoc  tlie  in  alium  «!ieiii.     (Poen.  499) 

Rhoiluin  venimus,  uhi  quas  merces  vexeram 
omuis  lit  volui  ven«li»li  ex  sententia:    (Mere.  93) 

servos  pollicitust  dare 
suos  mihi  omriis  (juaestioni.     (Most.   1(»S7) 

iibi  ego  omnibus 
parvis  magnisqiie  miseriis  i>raefiikior:    (Ps.  771) 

atfpie  me  minoris  faeio  prae  iUo,  qui  omnium 
legum  atque  iurum  fietor,  eomlitor  eluet;   (Ep.  522) 

* 

fateor  me  omnium 
bominum  esse  Athenis  Attieis  minimi  preti.     (Ep.  501) 

The  first  six  examples,  in  which  the  adjective  follows  in  the 
second  verse,  involve  no  violation  of  verse-unity:  the  last  three, 
however,  are  certainly,  from  an  Enj,dish  standpoint,  more  de- 
structive of  unity.  (Cf.  also  the  separation  of  tot  in  Poen. 
582.)  It  is  likely  that  the  adjective  is  more  separable  than 
the  corresponding  word  in  English:  the  evidence  for  this  is 
found  in  the  apparent  separability  of  numerals  in  general,  and 

"»Cf.  Poen.  898. 

"*For  omnes  in  Ter.  ef.  And.  77,  667,  Eun.  1032.  Similarly  complures, 
Ter.  Ad.  229  (cf.  plurumi  in  Plautus,  above,  p.  237);  pauei,  Ter.  Hec.  58; 
aliquod,  Ter.  Phor.  312.     Cf.  Norden,  Aeneis  Buch  VI,  390. 


Vol.  ij       Prcscott. —Thought   and   Verse   in   Plautus. 


259 


in  the  usage  of  the  corresponding  words  in  Greek  verse."'  Cer- 
tainly  the  explanation  of  the  separation  of  numerals  is  more 
likely  to  be  found  in  inherent  qualities  of  the  numerals  as 
such  than  in  such  attendant  features  as  the  metrical  convenience 
of  the  cretic  omnium  at  the  end  of  a  verse. 


VII. 

Proper  and  improper  numerals,  pronominal  adjectives,  and 
in  particular  possessive  adjectives  were  separated  without  essen- 
tial    disturbance    of    verse-unity.     This    inherent    separability 
seems  to  be  proved  not  only  by  the  treatment  of  these  words  in 
Plautus,  but  by  the  evidence  furnished  by  early  Latin  prose, 
a!ul  by  Cireek  prose  and  verse:  the  nature  of  the  evidence  sug- 
gests that  this  separability  was  an  inherited  trait.     The  opera- 
tion  of  Wackernagel's  law  and  of  the  law  of  pronominal  attrac- 
tion IS  a  further  manifestation  of  the  looseness  of  the  Ijond  that 
binds  pronominal  adjectives  to  their  nouns.     The  separation  of 
possessive  adjectives  was  probably  promoted  by  the  unemphatic 
nature  of  the  words,  which  suffered  a  loss  of  their  individuality. 
These  conclusions  do  not  differ  essentially  from  those  of  Appuhn. 
In  the  treatment  of  attributive  adjectives,  however,  I  hope 
that  something  has  been   gained  by  an   attempt   to   iiiterpret, 
within  the  limits  set  by  the  paper,  the  passages  illustrating  sep- 
aration.    We  found  that  attributives  following  the  noun  and 
separated  were  regularly  expressions  of  ideas  ranging  from  pre- 
dicative to  amplifying,  and  the  separation  was  usually  attended 
by  features  that  reinforced  the  unity  of  the  verse.     We  found, 
too,  that  when  the  separated  attributives  preceded  their  nouns, 
although  from  an  English  standpoint  the  unity  of  the  verse  was 

"•For  the  ordinary  numerals  in  Ter.  cf.  Eun.  332,  Phor.  638,  Ad.  46.  • 
For  Greek  examples  ef.  t'/f,  ov6eic, /^^tki^,  Menander  535,  3;  282;  382;  397; 
128,  3;  Philemon  4,  13;  28,  9;  other  numerals,  Menander  7,  1;  357;  547- 
548;  Philemon  12;  89,  7;  Traf,  Menander  13,  2;  173;  oAof,  Menander  67,  2; 
rdi^ref,  a7rav7ff,DiphiIus  17,  2;  Philemon  91,  7;  Menander  292,  4;  363,  7; 
404,  7;  532,  1;  TroA/.a,  Menander  593.  And  for  numerals  in  early  Latin 
prose,  cf.  Altenburg,  1.  c.  524  flf. 


260 


Umvcrsiff/  of  California  PuhJirations.    r<"'i-^ss  Phil. 


.[ 


inii>air(Ml,  tlu^rv  uvro  alniDst  always  assoefaflons  of  sound  or 
sense  that  missortrd  the  unity  of  fh,.  vrrs,';  more  often  tlu'  unity 
was  ap[)arent  in  the  or<ranization  of  tlic  thonirht  than  in  the 
superficial  eollijration  resnltin.«r  from  sound-effects. 

AVe  may  not  always  he  confident  that  the  resultant  effects  rep- 
resent efficient  causes:  in  the  matter  of  alliteration  this  is  espe- 
cially  true.  The  confinement,  in  most  cases,  of  alliterative 
^'roups  to  a  sincjle  verse  attests  the  entity  of  the  verse,  hut  allit- 
eiation  is  seldom  more  than  an  incidental  factor  in  sei)aration: 
usually  other  and  stron-:..,.  factors  a[>pear  alonjr  with  alliteration. 
Metrical  conveni(Mic(^  is  evident  in  the  position  of  some  words, 
especially  those  of  considerahle  len«rth.  cretic  wonls,  and  the 
possessive  adjectives  of  pyrrhic  and  iamhic  nii'asurement :  the 
I>osition  convenier.t  for  such  words  may  have  conduced  to  sepa- 
ration.    Aj^'ain,  however,  other  factors  are  usually  discernihle. 

Indeed,  the  total  effect  of  a  Vi^rse  or  couplet  is  a  product  of 
many  factoid:  it  is  not  easy  to  say  that  one  is  more  important 
than  another.  But  it  seems  to  me  noteworthy  that  in  so  larcje 
a  numher  of  separated  attrihutives,  the  unity  of  the  verse,  if 
my  interpretati<»n  is  correct,  is  effected  hy  internal  or^^niization 
rather  than  hy  superficial  colliiration.  So  much  so  that  in  cases 
like  tnaxumo  \  nu  opstrrarisfi  opnr,  optuma  \  vos  video  oppor- 
iunitate,  tfssrram  \  coHfrnr  si  vis  hospifahm  I  prefer  to  recoj?- 
nize  the  l)e-innin,u:s  of  a  freer  techni(pie  rather  than  admit 
metrical  convenience  and  alliteration  as  really  dominant  factors 
in  the  separation. 

Such  cases  are  rare:  nor  may  anyhody  deny  the  t^ssential  unity 
of  verse,  the  practical  identity  of  verse  and  thou«rht,  in  the  ex- 
amples under  discussion.  The  effect  is  often  crudely  simple, 
but  in  many  cases  the  poet  is  far  from  hein«r  a  clumsy  crafts- 
man;  he  shows  no  little  competency  in  making  versJ-unity  a 
means  of  hrinjrinu:  into  effective  relief  associated  thouirhts  and 
sounds:  and  occasionally  he  uses  the  heginnin-and  the  end  of  the 
same  verse,  the  he<rinnin-s  of  successive  verses,  in  ways  that  indi- 
cate a  consciousness  of  the  opportunities,  not  mc^rely  of  the  limi- 
tations, presented  by  verse-unity. 

It  is  also  significant  that  we  can  find  so  little  positive  proof  of 


^'^^'  1]       Prcscott.-nought   and    Verse   in   Plant 


us. 


261 


he  .nttuence  of  his  Greek  sources:-  he  seems  rather  to  be  work- 
|n^  out  h,s  own  probh.„s  i„  the  spirit  of  his  own  language  fash 

to  L.t,n,  often  prodi.e.nfr  a  neat  balance  or  antithesis  which  has 
yet  to  be  proved  to  result  fnnn  a  study  of  Greek  rhe  o        and 
happd,-  conserving,  even  within  the  limits  set  by  versel  ty 
the  sunpler   torn.s   of  interlocked   word-,ro„ps.   which   are   as 
eharaetensfc  of  the  organizing  power  of  t.J  Roman  mind  as 
any  phase  of  their  political  adnnnistration.     These  same  word- 
groups,  however,  must  sometimes  break  down  the  barriers,  and 
n>a^>'>,.o  1  me  opseerarUti  oj„rc,  opUuna  |  ros  video  opportuni- 
fah.    .,,era,n  |  co.f,rrc  si  vis  hospitaler  perhaps  point  the  wav 
winch  leads  to  greater  freedom. 
Only  after  further  investigation  is  it  .safe  to  take  the  historical 
o  nt  of  v.ew  and  ask  ourselves  what  is  Plautus's  precise  posi- 
..n  .n  the  developn.ent  of  verse-technique.     In  the  answer  to 
hat  question  we  must  not  be  too  hasty  in  placing  hi„,  near  the 
lH.gn„„„g  of  art-poetry  in  Latin:  the  comic  verse  under  discus- 
s.on  ,s  the  nuxst  capacious  of  the  commoner  fonns  of  metre;  and 
this  verse  conveyed  the  conversational  Latin  of  the  day  to  an 
aud,ence   that   nn.st   catch   at   once   the   effects   of  sound   and 
thought.     Epic  verse  and  tragedy  were  created  under  different 
co„d,tu,ns.     Some  of  the  simple  directness  of  Plautus's  verse  is 
perhaps  to  be  attributed  to  these  conditions  rather  than  to  the 
chronological   proximity  of  the   Saturnian   verse.     But   in   the 
Pr^«Upaper  we  have  been  interested  only  in  suggesting  some 

renrinTtht  ^""'■«V"''"''f  "<>"  "'  «'-"  '-""'O"*  '"e  statement  mart 
We     IT  *  ""■     ^'  '"""'''  **  "^^  to  fi-d  P^^'lels  from  Eurip- 

.des    an,   some  cases  from   the  New   Comedy,  of  Plautus's  postponement 
of  adjectives  and  nouns  to  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse   and  of  ool 

c^'f  r'^'r'  ^'""' "" '''  ^-'-^  -"  "*  tiVoirtoTe" 

caesura  of  the  second  verse,  familiar  to  readers  of  Greek  tragic  poetry    is 

to  Greek  and  Plaut.ne  verse  too  hastily  to  be  regarded  as  merely  imitative 
>n  I^t.n  verse   especially  in  the  case  of  antithetical  effects.     Investi^n 
particularly    of   the   technique   of   Aristophanes,   Euripides,    and   the   New 
Comedy,   based   upon   sympathetic  interpretation,   must   precede  any   mo™ 
precise  statement  of  Plautus's  relation  to  his  models  in  the^  respeZ 


262 


Vnivirsitij  of  California  Publications,   [^'lass  Phil. 


ways  of  interpretinfr  a  small  part  of  the  evidence  that  bears  upon 
the  question  which  Leo  has  answered,  forestallin«r  the  investijra- 
tion  of  the  subject  in  his  admirable  statement  of  the  historical 
position  of  Flautus  in  this  phase  of  verse-technicpie. 


^^pp«a 


INDEX.* 


Accius  :\{)S  W,  L>i>5  note. 
A(k>s{M)ta,  10. 

Ataxpu}^'    lIpo^Vwu,    jriven  Athenian 

citizenship,  151. 
Alcaeus,  i',  9. 

Alcaic  strophe  (Horace),  175. 
Aicnian,  i',  U. 

xVinj.hictvoiis,  Hoard  of,  139. 
Aiiacn'ori,  1>. 

Anti^ronis,  established,  141. 
Anti^r,mis   and    Denietrias,    abrogu- 
ti<Mi  of,  141'. 

Antij>atros,    an-hori,    <hite    of,    140. 
1  .").•{.  ' 

Archoiis,     Atlieiiian,     chronolotfieal 

list,   i:i'2. 
Ariphron,  M4. 

ArrlieiH'i.ies,   arehon,  date  of,   140. 

1.13. 
Askh'pios,  catalojrue  of  <!e<lications, 
1(59;  first  (kMlication  by  the  to] 
147;    j>riests   of,    chronological 
list,  131;  priests  of,  oilicial  se- 
(|uence,    144. 
Athens,  Jud'ore  ("hrenionidean  War, 
170;  ehaiijrc  of  ^roveriinieiit  in, 
149;  eleven  tribes  in,  14L*;  fall 
of,  154;  Mace(h)nian  money  in, 
147;      reeleetions     of      magis- 
trates,   139;    war  with   Aratos, 
15S,   159. 
Attalis,  creation  of,  142. 
Attic  coins,  old  style  of  abaudone.l, 
148.  ' 

Hacchylides,  9;  hiatns  in,  1. 
Hendis,  «hipliration  of  cult,  157. 
Bopp,     l\,    influence    on     language 

stu«ly,  95. 
C'aecilius  221  H\  222  note, 
i'harikles,  archon,  «Iate  of,  KJl. 
Charinos,  archon,  date  of,  150. 
Chremoniuean    War,   «late   of,    139. 

170. 
Cicero,  Ad  Att.  ii,  18,  3,  57. 
—Arch.  7,  17,  08. 
— Caecil,  13,  43,  68  note. 
Caecil,  19,  (52,  08  note. 
— Div.  i,  24,  48,  212  note. 
— Tnip.  P(.mp.  17,  50,  68  note. 
— Lael.  27,  104,  68. 
—Mil.  27,  72,  68  note. 
—Pis.  33,  81,  68  note. 
— Prov.  (/ons.  14,  35,  68  note. 


*  Univ.  Calif.  Publ.  Class.  Phil.,  Vol.  1. 

[263] 


Prov.  Cons.  20,  47,  6S  note. 
—Sulla  13,  38,  67. 

Sulla  30,  83,  68  note. 
— Tull.  15,  36,  68  note. 
— Verr.  ii,  1,  27,  70,  68  note. 
Verr.  ii,  1,  59,  154,  75. 
Verr.  ii,  2,  6,  15,  {}H  note. 
Verr.  ii,  2,  40,  99,  68  note. 
Verr.  ii,  3,  13,  32,  68  note. 
Verr.  ii,  3,  40,  91,  (iS  note. 
Verr.  ii  3,  72,  169,  68  note. 
Verr.  ii,  4,  51,  114,  68  note. 
Clai)p,     K.    R,     Hiatus    in    Greek 

jNlelic  Poetry,  1-34. 
Comj>arative  grain  mar,  95. 
Concessive  sentences,  intensive    40 
43,  44;  simple,  37,  43,  44;  witli 
inchcative  apodosis,  6iy. 
Concessive     si-clauses,   in    Plautus, 
35-49.  ' 

Conscription    in    Athens,    abandon- 
ment of,  163. 
Corinna,  3,  10. 
Demetrias,  established,  141. 
Denietrias   and    Antigonis,   abrotra- 

tion  of,  142. 
Diagoras  of  Melos,  10. 
Digamma,  2. 

Digammated  words,   in   Homer,   8; 
in  other  authors,  10;  in  Pindar' 

o. 

Diogeiton,  archon,  ,]ate  of,  167. 
Diomedon,  archon,  «hite  of,  155. 
Kkphantos,  archon,  <Uite  of,  159. 
Eleven-syllable     Alcaic      (Horace). 
175.  ^' 

Elision,  in  Horace's  Alcaic  strophe. 
192.  *      ' 

Ephebes  in  ."^05/4,  164,  170. 
Ephebe  lists,  162. 

Ephebe    system,    made    voluntary, 

166. 
Erinna,  10. 
Etiam  si,  45-46. 
Etsi,  43-44. 

Eubulos,  archon,  date  of,  149,  169. 
EiuiKldrjs    'A\ai€6s,     priest     of    As- 

klepios,  146. 
Ferguson,    W.    S.,    The    Priests    of 

Asklepios    (A   new   Method   of 

Dating      Athenian     Archons), 

131-173. 
Glaukippos,  archon,  date  of,  156. 


;fi| 


.VA 


Index. 


Index. 


'iillj 


Grimm,  J.,  influence  on  language 
stuily,  95. 

Hiatus,  after  a  iUphthcng  or  long 
vowel,  14-a:i;  after  a  short 
vowel,  32-34;  apparent,  3-14; 
in  Hacchylides,  1;  in  (Jreek 
Melic  Poetry,  1  34;  in  Homer, 

1,  L';  in  i'indar,  1;  (inter- 
verse),  19'J;  relative  frequency 
in  Greek  authors,  "1. 

Historical  grammar,  96. 

Homer,  27;   digammate<l  words  in, 

8;   hiatus  in,   1. 
Iloraee,  Ahaic  strophe  in,   175. 
Horace,  (arm.  i,   1,  2,   119;    1,  27. 

119;  2,  9,  119;   3,  22,   119;   3, 

24,  119;  3,  30,  119;  4,  1,  12»>; 
4,5,  120;  7,  7,  120;  7,  15,  120; 
7,  16,  120;  S,  10,  120;  8,  14, 
120;  11,  2,  120;  11,  5,  120; 
11,  7,  120;  12,  3,  120;  13,  12, 
120;  It),  H,  120;  22,  17,  120; 
22,  21,  120;  24,  2,  12();  2(i 
(whole  ode),  124;  20,  2,  120; 
26,  6,  120;  2S  (whole  ode), 
124;  28,  2,  121;  2S,  .5,  121; 
28,  7,  121;  2S,  16,  121;  28,  18, 
121;  28,  19,  121;  31,  8,  121; 
34  (wlnde  oiU'),  124;  34,  2, 
121;  34,5,  121;  23,  12,  121; 

—('arm.  ii,  1.  17,  121;   1,  30,  121; 

3,  1,  122;  ..,  12,  122;  6,  14, 
122;  6,  21,  122;  7,  18,  122;  s. 
10,  122;  9,  3,  122;  10,  9,  122; 

10,  IS,  i22;  11,  13,  122;  13, 
13,  122;  14,  11,  122;  14,  15, 
122;  14,  IS,  122;  14,  21,  122; 
16  (whole  oile),  11^4;  16,  2, 
122;  16,  9,  122;  16,  13,  122; 
16,   17,    122;    16,    19,    122;    16, 

22,  123;  18,  1,  123;  2»),  21, 
1**3* 

— Carm.'iii,  1.  10.  123;  1,  41,  123; 

2,  29.  123;  3,  49,  123;  11,  19, 
123;  17,  12,  123;  27,  10,  1!3; 
2S  (whole  o«le),  124;  28,  4, 
123 ; 

— Carm.  iv.  3  (whole  ode),  129;  3, 

4,  128;  3,  18.  124,  128;  3,  22, 
128;  4,  13,  128;  4,  24,  12S;  4, 
63,  128;  5,  29,  128;  7,  9,  12S; 
7,   14,   125,  128;   9,  5,  128;   9, 

25,  128;  10  (whole  ode),  128; 

11,  6,  128;  11,  11,  128;  13,  20, 
128;  14,6,  12S;  14,  28,  128; 

— Carmen   Saeeulare,   127. 

— Epode  2,   7,   118;    2.   13.    US;    2. 

23,  118;  2,41,  118;  2.46,  118; 


4,  14,  118;  iS.^S,  118;  9,  1,  119; 

9,  20,  119;  11,  2,  119;  13,  14, 
119;  14,  13,  119;  16,  31,  119; 
16,  48,  119;  16,  54,  119;  17, 
m,  119; 

-Sat.  i,  1,  13,  111;   1,  23,  111;   1, 
25,  HI;  1,  28,  112;  1,  50,  112; 

1,  64,  112;  1,  68,  112;  1,  70, 
112;  1,  98,  112;  1,  117,  112;  1, 
121,  113;  2,8,  113;  2,32,  113; 

2,  :yi\,  113;  2,  104,  113;  2,  119; 
113;   2,    133,   113;    3,   14,    113; 

3,  26,  113;  3,  38.52,  113;  3,  40, 
114;  3.  45.  114;  3,  5(),  114;  3. 
m,  114;  3,  98,  114;  3,  98-112, 
114;  3,  99,  114;  3,  1(M».  114; 
3,  101,  114;  3,  103,  114;  3,  105, 
114;   3,   108,   114;   3,  109,   114; 

3,  110.  114;  3.  111.  114;  3, 
112,  114;  4.  76,  115;  4.87,115; 

4,  105.  115;  4,  106,  115;  5,  73, 
11.-,;   .-,,   101,   115;   5,   102,    115; 

6,  4,  115;  6,  18,  115;  8,  10, 
115;  8,  46.  115;  9,  24.  115;  9, 
34,   115;    10,  49,  115; 

-Sat.  ii,  1,  17.  116;  1.  25,  116;  1, 
.52,  116;  1,  77,  116;  2,  17,  116; 

2,  28,  116;  2,  83,  116;  2,  88, 
116;  2,  104,   116;   2,  105,  116; 

3,  49.  116;  3,  91,  117;  3,  95, 
116;  3,  141,  117;  3,  153,  117; 
.3,  191,  117;  3,  193,  117;  3,  199, 
117;  3,  200.  117;  3,  269.  117; 
:;.  2S.3.  117;  4.  90.  117;  4,  94, 
117;  6.  1.  117;  6,  59,  117;  6, 
61.  117;  6.  101.  117.  126;  7. 
28.  117;  7,  49,  117;  7,  si,  118; 

7.  90,  MS;  7,  H)5,  118;  8,  51, 
US;  S,  75,  118; 

-Epist.  i,  1,  IS,  124;  1,  42,  124; 
1.  52,  124;  1,  65,  124;  1,  82, 
124;  2,  31,  124;  2,  40,  124;  2, 
47,  124;  2,  54,  114,  125;  2,56. 
125;  3.   19.  125;  4,  16,  125;  6, 

I,  125;  6.  3.  125;  6.  4,  125;  6, 

II.  125;  (>.  24.  125;  6.  27.  125; 
7,  S.  125;  7,  24,  125;  7,  77, 
125;    7,    84,    125;    8.    12.    125; 

10,  7,  125;  11.  10,  125;  11,  21. 
126;  11,  27,  126;  11,  29.  126; 
12,  2,  1-6;  12,  1.1,  126;  12.  15. 
126;  12,  1(5.  126;  14.  S,  126; 
14,  12.  126;  14,  13,  126;  14, 
14,  126;  14,  22,  126;  14.  26. 
124,  126;  14,  35,  126;  IS.  9, 
126;  18,  71,  126;  IS,  lOS,  126; 
19,  21,  126;  19,  44,  126; 


—Epist  ii,  1,  S,  127;  1,  11,  127;  1, 
13,  127;  1.  101,  127;  2.  32, 
127;  2,  58.  127;  2.  125.  127; 
2,  13.5,  127;  2,  138.  127;  2, 
151,  127;  2.  J59.  127;  2.  175, 
127;  2,  207,  127;  2,  213.  127; 

— Ars  Poetiea,  49.  129;  (U,  129; 
70,  129;  111.  129;  17.3.  129; 
359,  129;   393.  129;   467,  129; 

Ibycus  of   Rhegiiim.  10. 

Ictus,  in  Horace's  Alcaic  stro|)he, 
193. 

Indefinite  2nd  singular,  82. 
Indo-European  languages,  95. 
Inscriptiones  Graecae  ii,  310,   151; 
ii,  Add.  Nov.  373  b,  138,  140; 
ii,   A<hl.    Nov.    567   h,    140;    ii. 
766,    138,    145;    ii.    Ad<l.    Nov. 
766   1).    145;     ii,   767,   145;     ii, 
S;{5.     146.     1^8;     ii,    836,    138; 
ii,    S59.    167;    ii\    178   b,    1.38; 
ii\  251   b,  164;  n\  371  c,  166; 
ii'',  373  c,   158;    ii\  385  e,  496 
c,  and  ii  Add.  453  b,  16S. 
Isaios.   andion.   <late   of,    141. 
Jason,  archon.  date  of,  154. 
•'unggramniatiker,    103. 
Kallimedes.  arelion,  date  of.  1.1;";, 
Kimon  1.  archon,  date  of,  159,  166. 
Kimon  If,  archon,  date  of,  1.59,  166. 
Kleanthes.    headship   of,    154. 
K\ei7[ ^1/175],  secretary  in  276/5,  149. 
Kleomachos,  archon,  date  of,  155. 
Lucretius,  Book  i,  8,  122,  128;   14 
12S;   19,  126;  .36,  112;  72,  126; 
74,  121;  S4-100,  117;  127,  126; 
138,   129;   200,   119;   211,  112; 
228,  117;   257,  122;   2.59,  US; 
275,   122;   276,  121;   305.  120; 
311.   116;    318,  128;   .326,  120; 
414,  116;  422,  114;   474,  119; 
639,  127;   641,   127;   6.56,  121; 
680.   US;    02.3.  119;   926,  126; 
927.   121-122;    928,    117,    120; 
929,   115;   9.36,   111;   947,   127; 
1031.  121;   1114,  125; 
Book  ii,  1,  125;   7,  123;  8,  122; 
10,  116;   U,  lL'3;   17,  116;   27, 
123;  29,  US;  .30,  122,  126;  .34, 
12.3,  124;  37,  122;  .39,  127;  49, 
123;    .50,    US;    264,    126;    314, 
117,   128;   41.3,  122;   4.30,   118; 
.582,  117;   6.36,  120;  64.3,  119; 
646,   115;   70.3,  116;   831,  117; 
918,  121;  927,  112;  1031,  121; 
1040,    125;    1104,     123;     1167, 
129;   1170,  125;  1172,  117; 


Bookiii,  2,  118,  128;  4,117,  126; 
21,  128;   36,  128;  62,  122;  65, 
124;    69,    115;    71,    121;    218, 
112;   371,  113;   424,  112;   449, 
115;   481,  111;  .569,  127;  581, 
123;    785,  119;   830,  129;   847, 
125;   871,  117;   894,  122;   897, 
119;   904,   126;   915,  120;  938, 
U2,   127;    939,   113,  126;    941, 
113;   95.5,   123;   9.59,  113;   962, 
126,  127;   969,  129;   971,  127; 
981,  112;  992,  122;  1003,  113; 
1025,  117,  12.5,  128;  1026,  116; 
1027,     US,     121;     1028,     U5; 
10.34,    116;    10.35,    122;     1037, 
12s,    129;       1038,    129;     104.5, 
127;     1049,     120;    1052,    117; 
1058,    124;    10.59,    126;     1060, 
125;  106.3,  117,  118,  125;  1066, 
117;     1067,     126;     1068,     123, 
126;    1071,     124;     1082,     116; 
108.5,  122;   1090,  128; 
Book    iv,    304    (329),    127;    376, 
129;   .378,   120;   450,   116;   4.58, 
115;   460,  122;   .509,  127;   .548, 
120;   571,  120;   576,  119;   .582, 
124,  128;   712,  129;   789,  115; 
802,  113;  867,  117;  1005,  115; 
1023,    127;     10.34,    118;     1071, 
113;     1080,     116;    1109,    120; 
1129,     113;      U55-U69,     113; 
1156,    114;     1162,    114;     1177, 
US;   1198,  119;   1282,  115; 
Book  V,  1,  125;  10,  121;  37,  127; 
82,    115;    8.3,    125;    20.3,    119; 
204,  120;   206,   126;   220,  122; 
251,   118;   2.56,   119,   121;   2.59, 
U5;    272,   119;    326,   114,   120, 
128;   381,  121;   .386,  128;   409, 
128;    727,  120;    737,   120,   128; 
746,  120;    782,  129;   821,  114; 
8.39,  126;   864,  119;   9.36,  118; 
9.39,  114;   951,  125;   962,  114; 
96.3,  114;  979,  126;  1007,  112; 
10.34,    116;    1044,    126;    1057, 
114;     1084,    123;     108.5,    125; 
1108,    114;    1110,    127;     1113, 
12.3,    124;     1114,    116;     1118, 
122;      1119,    121;     1127,    121, 
122;     1144,    114;     1151,    114; 
1204,    125;    1213,    117;     1218, 
125;     1230,     127;     1276,    115; 
1283,    114;    1429,    113;    1454, 
125; 
Book  vi,   17,  114,  125;   2.5,   125; 
27,  116;  .50,  115;  .58,  115;  HI,    ' 
120;   129,   115;    1.52,  115;   202, 
128;   247,  121;  259,  120;  400, 


[264] 


[265] 


I 


Judex. 


Imh 


JC. 


• 


121;  421,  122;  429,  122;   (JOS, 

12();     1114,     119;     114:i,     120; 

1149,    129;    11S7,    117;    1222, 

llH; 
Avffavia[s     M€]Xt[Tei^],      priest     of 

Asklcpiiis,    149,    1()9. 
Av(rl0€os       TpiKopuffios,        priest       of 

Askl('|)i(»H,  14">, 
LysanijiH,  an-lion,  dat*-  of.   140. 
Lysiajics,  an-hoii,   datr  of,    140, 
Lysias,  arvhoii,  «lat«'  of,  1  .')!>. 
MelaiiippiiU's  of   Mi-los,    lo. 
Merrill,  \V.  A.,  On  thr  liiHiierue  of 

LinTt'tiiis  on  Horace,   111  129. 
Mesfjjjeia,    ini(iortanr<'    of     in     ;{nl 
eeiiturv,  H.i'.,  HiO. 

Mesojjeia,  Koivbv  tQv  yUffo-yeiuv. 
lf)l.  1(>2. 

Mirari  (riiirurn),  in  apodosis,  8(i-S7. 

Mixture  in  lanjjiiaj^e,  KM). 

Nine-Hyllal»l«'  Al<'ai«*  (Horace),  1S4. 

Nutting,  II.  ('.,  Studies  in  the  Si- 
Clause,  ;t.V94. 

Oflicial   order,    break    in,    142. 

Olhios,  archon,  date  of,  Hil. 

'Oi^Twp  MeXtreus,  priest  of  Ask- 
lepios,  14(). 

Ildraticos,  priest  of  AKklepios, 
145. 

Peiraicus,  deidine  of,   157. 
Phaidrias,  anhor),  »lat«',   1(57. 
Phaidros   of   Sphettos,    p«ditics   of, 
150. 

Philippos,  arehon,  date  of.  150. 

4»tXoxcipi?s     'Oa^^ei',      priest    of     As- 
klepios,  14(5. 

Pliiloxenus  of  (Vthera,  10. 

Phonetics,  98. 

Piiidar,  dijxaniniate«l  words  in,  4. 

l*in<lar,  diphthonjjs  and  long  vowels 
in  hiatus,   15. 

Pindar,  hiatus  in,  1. 

Plautus,  Aniphitruo,  v.  21,  44;  134, 
2-15  (note  82);  I.T),  245  (note 
82):  :n:\,  94  (note  52);  3:Ui, 
58;  ;i91-92,  9:i ;  450.  42,  71,  72 
(note  27);  88,  480,  2i:i;  498, 
210;  55(>-57,  252;  HI 2- 13,  25(»; 
621,  78  (note  33);  (175,  50 
(note  2);  701,  92  (note,  94)  ; 
703.  51,  S3;  704,  223  (note 
37);  705,  84  (note  40);  819, 
234;  825-26.  251;  849,  93 
(note  50);  858-59,  250;  880- 
81,  78,  80;  891-92,  57;  908,  37; 
947  48,  HI,  H2;  977,  44;  980  81. 
210;  1048,  40,  88;  1051,  41; 
1063-H4,  23H;  1070,  213;  1107- 
9,  223;   1132-33.  258; 


— Asinaria.  v.  lH-17,  245  (note  83), 
284   (note  88);   81,  233    (note 
52)j    111-13,    244;     112,    243, 
245     (note     83);     120  21,     .S4 
(note  40);    15.3.  41    (note  4) ; 
212,  213    (not.'    13);    1H4,   ruy; 
193,     93;     210  13,     223     (note 
35);  237.  41   (note  4);  241  42, 
§3;  24»:,,  234,  3144,  40,  m;  MO- 
61,   25©;    ^m,   243;'  387,    245 
(note   82);    403,    30;    405,    4(», 
«;  413,  40;  414  15,  47,  71,  72, 
1;     424  20.     223     (note    35); 
434,  245   (note  S2);   470,  229; 
528-29,  77;  53H  3s.  !>J ;  5H4-05, 
257,    258;     574  75.    257.    25S; 
589-90,   52;    Ho:i,   .'.s ;    099,   59, 
HO;  720.  JM;   737  3S,. 247;  744, 
86    (note    4;;)  ;    703.    240,    241 
(note);  781-82,  223  (note  35); 
785,   245    (noto   83);    .S7H,   .15; 
894,  41    (note  4);   920-21,  219 
(note  27)  ;  933,  3S,  (50; 
-Aulularia,  v.   12.  2;;3    (note  58); 
10  17,     233;     21  22,     2  Is,     233 
(note  58);   30,  'SM\   (note  58); 
70,    209;    75,    i'l'l'    (note    34); 
77-78,    224;    OS,    40;     loo,    41, 
47;     114-15,    223     (note    35); 
162,    220;     172-73,    220;     11).5, 
230    (note   05);    209,   SO;    I'liH- 
27,  221  ;  22S,  50  (n(.te  2j  ;  247. 
85    (n..te    42)  ;    254,    3S;    l»70, 
222   (note  34);   289.  245   (note 
82);      294  95,     l'51  ;      311,     41 
(not*'  4),  ()1.  00;  320,  50  (note 
2);    30S,   230    (ncde  ()5)  ;    .380- 
81,   83    (note)  ;     421,    43;    489- 
90,    220;    498  9J>,    224;    523  24. 
51;    532-33.   253;    534-35,   221; 
555,   40,  09;    557,    '^'y;    (JlO  11, 
250;   (517,   250    (note  93);   020- 
21,  78  (note  33);  049-50,  223; 
709,    250     (note    93);     733  34, 
244,  245   (note  83),  248   (note 
88);   703,  250  (n<.te  93);   708. 
44;    770.    93    (note    50);    S09. 
250  (note  93);  821,  250  (n.»te 
93);   Frajr.  3.  209  (note  5); 
-Bacchides.    v.    .35,    92    (note),   94 
(also  note  51);   41,  230    (note 
05);    128.  40,  47.  00,   70;    172- 
73,  247;  179,  38,  ()S  (note  23)  ; 
209-210,    250;     230.     I'lJ,    l»1.S 
(note    13);    235-3(5.    251;    237- 
38,  247;  279-80,  211,  224  (note 
39);    304,    ,39;    3«>5,    3S ;    395, 
236  (note  65);  400-7,  243,  245 


(note     83),     248.    (note     88); 
426,  84  (note  39);  440-41,  82; 
447-48,    85;    479-80,    .lO;    529, 
80;     5(53,    64;     590,    212,    213 
(note    13)  ;    035,    51;    078,    SO 
(note    43);    (597,    40,    47,    (59; 
698,  SO;    731.32.  91;    777.   245 
(note    S3)  ;     785.    257    (note)  ; 
818-19.    01,    (52;     842-43,    240; 
879-80.    24(5;     SSO.    l'45     (note 
H2);    882,    212;    885,    40;    SS7, 
38;    901,  243    (note    78);    913, 
84;    934,   212.   213    (note    13); 
941-42,  225;   973-74,  257,  258; 
982-83,  257;    1004,  42,   47,   71, 
><8;      1101-11,     L»li>;      l()i;i,     ;is  ; 
1022,    227;     102(5,    212;     1045, 
40,    (50;     1102,    40;     1151,    79; 
1100,  43;    1172,  (50    (note   12)  ; 
1184-85,     i).3,     i'5(5;     1191,    43; 
1193,  38,  50   (note  2); 
— Boeotia,  Pray.   1,  v.  4-5,  220; 
— ('ae«us,  FraJ,^  4,  25(5. 
— Captivi,  V.   IL',  37;   27-28,  .•)2,  77, 
80    (note);    82-83,   219;    98-99, 
224;    100-(H,    7(5;    112-13,   252; 
11(5,    S4;    J40,    244;     141,    245 
(note    S2);    150,    22(5;    l.-)9-(50. 
230;     1(51),    208;     179-SO.    230; 
202,  82;  20(5,  58;  221,  S2 ;  223 
38;    259(50,   59;    321,  44;'  417- 
1>>,    73     (note);     421-22,    240; 
529,  41   (note  4);  531.32,  230;' 
543,    43;    .-,<)<>,    m,    92    (note), 
94;   (509-10,  222;   012,  90;   013, 
92    (note);    018,    80;    (5.32,    230 
(note    (55);    (5(>5-(50,    229    (also 
note  50);   072-73,  258;  (5S3-S4, 
38,    88;    711-12,   52,    251;    742, 
38;   744,  43;  842,  43;  850,  59; 
854,  44;  873-75,  207,  245  (note 
82);    90(5,   59;    99(5,    86;    1034, 
223  (note  37); 
-Casina,  v.  93,  40;  255,  225  (note 
44);  202(54,  220;  2(59,  93,  94; 
279-80,    243     (note    80);     "98 
38;    .309,   225    (note   44);    314,' 
38,  60;  324,  41    (note  4);  335, 
61;    345,    94    (note    52);    357- 
58,    89,    90;     440-41,    61,    02; 
521-22.    258;    528-29,    57,    (50; 
540,  75;  542,  75;  591,  80;  (5(58, 
80;    721,  82;    742-43,   80;    707- 
OS,  211,  218;   795,  40;  80(5,  45 
(note),  78  (note  33),  89;  811. 
65    (note);    957,   43,   46    (note 
12),     47;     992-93,     235,     236; 
100(5,  223   (note  37). 


[266] 


— Cistellaria,   v.   3,  40,  52;    27,   37, 
0(5,  07,  (58,  70,  71;   33,  S4 ;   07, 
38;  98-99,  243  (note  80);  P^3- 
24,    23S;    152,   38,    73;    1.58-59, 
2(i7;    177-78,   252;    1S3-84,   70; 
184,    7(5,   245    (note   83);    308, 
53;    .321,    90,    91;    513  15,    223 
(note   35);    523-33,    228    (note 
4S);  544,  243   (note  78);  547, 
243,    245     (note    83);    .152-5.3, 
238;  580,  245   (note  82);  000, 
242    (also   note    7(5)  ;    (501,    245 
(note    S2);    (502-03,    250;    009- 
10,    244;    (551-52,    79;    (582,    81 
(note)  ;  (5S3,  51    (note  4)  ;  734, 
86    (note  45);    772,   245    (note 
83); 

— rurculio,  V.  .3,  42;   78,  233   (note 
')9)  ;    142,   85    (note   42);    145, 
90;    18(5,  (50;    211,  40;   22(5,  52, 
50;   229,  255   (note  100);  24(5- 
47,    54;    259,    44;    2(55,   8(5,    87 
(note    40);     2(58(59,    53;     299, 
59;  30.3,  89,  90;   321,  86;   345- 
46,  252;    .347,   245    (note  82); 
351,     89;     382,     210;     4"0-'>l 
238;     429-31,     237;     430,     245 
(note    82);    439-40,    212;    449, 
42,    72,    73;    490-91,    240;    504' 
44;  (5.30,  246;  (548-49,  219;  6(58, 
241;    701,  79;   709.  241; 
— Kpidicus,    V.     141-42,    225;     158, 
220    (note    58);    202-0.3,    237;' 
210-211,     257;      23(5-37,     257; 
243-44,    250    (note    94);    256, 
225    (note    44);    267(59,    252; 
279-80,    245    (note    83),    246; 
313.  210;   .341,  220   (note  28); 
389-91,     237     (note     67),     245 
(note  82),  247;  401,  245  (note 
82);   427-28,  255,  256;   451-52, 
86     (n<te     43);     480-81,     243 
(note  80)  ;  482,  245  (note  82)  ; 
486-87,  250;  488-89,  250  (note 
94)  ;  501-02,  258;  518.  45,  256; 
522-23,   258;    543,   90;    559(50, 
214  (rote  15);  58.3,  245  (note 
82);   597-98,  247;   599,  38,  93 
(note  50);  610,  42,  71,  72,  73, 
88;    039-40,   231;   641-42,  257; 
674,  82;  706-07,  210  (note  8); 
-Frivolaria,  Frag:.  8,  209  (note  6). 
— Menaechnii,  v.  18,  213;   26.  213- 
40,  213;  68,  213;  69,  213;  92, 
44;  103,  82;  142,  80;  192,  256 
(note    109);    195,    65    (note); 
232,  213;   238,  40.  73;  289-90, 
225;     384-85,    252;     400,    256 


[267] 


Indt  s. 


(note  109);  4(»i',  I'll;  417-18, 
79;  420,  l'4r>  (note  83);  447, 
2;16  (note  109;,  4so,  243,  24.1 
(note  83);  487,  211,  222;  518, 
24.1  (n(»te  83),  210  (note  109); 
')()(>,  80;  .17«>,  s.l  (note  42); 
(J 1 3,  2.1(i  (note  109)  ;  (»7(),  :58 ; 
740,  24;!  (note  83);  74(),  35, 
.38;  7.11,  40,  47;  7()0,  19;  780, 
21(5  (note  109);  844,  94  (;iIso 
not*'  11);  8«2-(i3,  220;  919, 
2.K)  (note  109);  1048-49,  79; 
KMiO,  42,  89;  1082,  213;  1088- 
90,  231  (note  13);  1102(^3, 
213;  1120,  213;  1121,  213; 
1132-33,  240   (note  73); 

-Mert'utor,  v.  93  94,  2.18;  lOO-Ol, 
255  (note  KJ.l)  ;  124-25,  223 
(note  35);  155-5(»,  80;  2<H>, 
22<;;  2(>2  r)3,  230;  298-99,  85; 
419.  91,  92  (note)  ;  430,  57; 
445,  85;  497,  59;  517,  55;  5«)4, 
94  (note  52)  ;  578,  !>4  (note 
52);  579-80,  255.  25(5;  .191,  42, 
72;  ♦)22,  78;  030.  3S ;  010-11, 
00;  092-93,  59;  094,  42,  73; 
744,  85  (note  42);  817  18, 
219;  819,  .38;  ,S38,  40;  841,  00, 
(57,  (58,  71;  852  54,  223  (not(^ 
35);  8(54,  255  (n«.te  10(5); 
890,  92;  907  (>8,  93;  941,  78 
(note  33);   9(54 .  237; 

Miles  (Uoriosns,  v.  9-10,  211;  .12- 
53.  (54,  (5(5  (note);  5(5-57,  211; 
73-74.  254;  75,  235;  88,  211; 
111-12,  251;  13132.  52,  05 
(note),  250;  15(5-57,  254;  1(50, 
254  (note  102);  188,  40;  203- 
05,  223;  220.  225  (note  44)  ; 
238,  213;  242-43.  250;  288-89, 
2.15;  293,  (51;  298,  38;  30(5,  38; 
383,  213;  391,  213;  407,  43; 
441-42,  213  (note  14);  450  52, 
2.32;  473-74,  214;  475  7(5.  01, 
(52;  502-03,  211;  508,  222,  225; 
528-29,  254;  532,  43;  542  43, 
245  (note  82).  247;  551-52, 
231;  .1(53(54,  241  (note  83), 
240;  571,  (50.  01,  (50  (n»)te)  ; 
60708,  251;  «31,  37,  38;  (5.3.1, 
245  (note  83);  042,  220;  073, 
82;  (585-80,  58;  (587  88,  225, 
228;  701-702,  2.10;  717,  213; 
7:{8-39,  243  (note  80);  744. 
44;  747,  38;  7(53(54,  1.3,  240; 
799,  245  (note  83)  ;  803-04,  40, 
73;  947,  84;  951 -.12,  2.14;  974- 
75,  213;   979,  227,  228;    1111- 


1 2 ,  (55  (note);  11 25 - 2( >,  227; 
1158,  78,  80;  1200,  227;  1207- 
08,  78;  1209,  40;  1218,  223 
(note  37)  ;  1233,  2(»9  (note  7)  ; 
12(52,  (54;  12(53,  .19;  1287->8, 
225;  1292  94,  254;  1345  4(5, 
255;  1310  17.  «)2;  1391  92,  214, 
2.11;  1417,94  (note  12);  1429, 
8(5   (note  43)  ; 

Mostellfirin,  v.  42,  37;  50  57,  (50 j 
115  40;  198-99.  253;  229,  42, 
89;  241  42,  42,  73;  .351,  41, 
42,  .10;  3(51,  210;  39.3,  89;  420- 
21,  231,  23(5;  4(52,  1(5;  I0l()4, 
227  (note);  532-3.3,  257;  580, 
93,  94;  (507-08,  2.10;  (509,  43 
(note);  010,  43  (note);  018, 
253  (note  KM));  037,  242; 
(5.38,  245  (note);  <'<•<>.  ^"^ 
(note);  (570,  242;  752,  235; 
7(50-01,  2.11;  771-77,  2.30,  217, 
218;  8-J7  ;58.  78;  814,  43;  912, 
40;  913,  210;  914,  38;  931, 
221;  983,  220;  997,  242;  998, 
245  (note  82);  1087-88.  244 
(note  82),  258.  245;  109.3,  94 
(n.ite  52)  ;    11(57,  4(5; 

fVrsn,  V.  39.  244;  40.  42,  (50;  43. 
2.34;  44,  78  (note  33);  99-100, 
222;  105-0(5,  220,  227;  110  11, 
220  (in.te  29);  114  15.  254; 
117  18.  234;  157  58.  219;  272, 
43;  282.  42;  .3(52.  44;  438,  212 
(note  12);  449  50.  S2 ;  474- 
75,  223;  512.  233  (note  57); 
52(5,  212  (note  12);  543  44, 
252;  571  73,  223  (not.'  35); 
1!>4-91.  (52,  (53.  (54;  (501.  43; 
Oil.  80;  (512  13.  92;  (511.  43; 
724,  90;  82.1,  >0; 

Poennlus,  v.  12,  71;  11,  .38;  19. 
208;  83-84,  208;  89-90.  22(5; 
103.  244;  1(54.  245  (note  82); 
1(55(5(5.  212;  19192.  245  (note 
82),  240;  207-08,  80;  212-13, 
83;  220-27,  2.30  (note  (55); 
2(55  (5(5,  2.13;  3.30.  89;  .342,  44; 
351,  .10;  374,  38;  40(5-07.  2.38 
(note  (58);  418-20.  223  (note 
35);  449-50.  2.30  (note),  2.14; 
472  7.1,  209;  499  100,  2.'S ; 
510-17.  .14,  74;  .1.10,  18.  (53; 
582.  25S;  015-1(>.  220,  227, 
(5.35-3(5,  82,  83;  070,  212;  (599- 
700,  233  (note  59);  705,  210; 
707,  89,  90;  713  14,  212,  213 
(note  13);  721-22,  92;  728, 
90;  729,  (50;   732,  212;   709-70, 


[268] 


iiiiiiiSLaii 


Index. 


250;  793,  210;  812-13,  82,  83; 

864,  50;  89(5,  239  (note  70); 

898,  258  (note  113)  ;  900,  240; 

921,  59;  9.18,  220;  903,  208; 

9()4,  240;  988-89,  237;  997, 

208;  1047-48,  80,  220;  1052, 

227;  1003-04,  79  (note  35); 

1080,  222;  1084,  43,  40  (note 

12);  1085,  (50;  1102,  240; 

1104-05,  238;  1124.  208;  1147- 

48,  254;  11(52(53,  89;  1192,  84; 

1201,  44;  1249,  89,  92  (note); 

1251-52,   51;   1259-01,   223 

(note  35),  240;  1340,  239 

(note  70);  1375,  245  (note 

82);  1377,  208;  1387,  240; 

1391-92,  77; 

-Pseiidolus,  V.  27-28,  218;  51,  208; 

18-00,  253;  85-8(5,  234;  87,  42; 

112-13,    243     (in)te    80);     244, 

44;   204,  42;   285,  02;   280,  92 

(note),   94;    290,   3.1,   38;    291, 

(50;    294-91,    234    (note);    340, 

208;    430-31,    219     (note    20); 

433,  8(5,  87   (note  40);  4(50  (51, 

229;      471,     44;      482-83,     24: 


.) 


(note     82),     248     (note     88); 
499,    (52    (note    14);    514,    94; 
01(5,  208;  (523-24.  253;  020.  45; 
050,    245    (notes   82   and    84); 
097-98,     211,     221;     724,     211; 
732.33,  2:M;    740,  59,  91;   749, 
8(5;    75(5-57,    219;    707(58,    2.14; 
771-72,    258;     783,    239    (note 
70);    792,    42,    73;    794,    241; 
823-24,  207;  849-50,  245   (note 
82),  248   (n<»te  88);   897,  235; 
9(50(52,    232;     974,    211;     97(5, 
80;     997,     80;     998-99,     218; 
1017-18,    250;    1033,    50    (note 
2);     1040-41,    208;     1070,    51; 
1090,  208;  111.3,  43;   1148,  77; 
1152,   208;    1162-63,   208,   209; 
1241-42,  62; 
-Kudens,  v.  17-18,  2.54,  2.15   (note 
104);   21,  255   (note  104);   39, 
220;  71,  223  (note  37);  74-75, 
219;    115-10,    220    (note    28); 
125,    211;     128-29,    257;     1.18, 
220;   159,  28,  72;   1(52-63,  219; 
313,211;  31(5-20,211,251;  329, 
79     (note    35);     332-33,    2.55; 
369-70.  219;  372-73,  209,  224; 
379,    65     (note)  ;    421-22,    209 
(note  6),  224;  472,  92  (note), 
94  (note  .52)  ;  478,  211  (note)  ; 
516,    227;    535,    90;    552,    86 
(note    44);    566,    55,    56,    63; 


680,  86  (note  44);  685-86,  219 
(note    27);    721,    94;    742-43, 
245    (note   82),    247;    744,   51 
(note  4);  810-11,  224;  890-91, 
79,    80    (note);    1014,    38,   40, 
89;    1020,  57;   1044,  43;   1065- 
(5(5,  230  (note),  2.14;  1075,  38; 
1079,  243    (note  78);    1085-8(5, 
92  (note)  ;  1138-39,  92  (note) ; 
1156-57,   211    (note);    1158-59, 
211,  224;    1235-36,   237;    1274, 
92  (note),  94  (note  52)  ;  1311, 
74  (note  52),  92  (note);  1350, 
43;  1353,  35,  38,  39;  1361,  40; 
1378-80,  253;    1.392,  245    (note 
83)  ;   1400,  37,  45; 
-Stiehus,    V.    27,    46;    41,   44;    43, 
38,  00;   71,  227;   112,  50  (note 
2);  151-52,  78  (note  33) ;  107- 
(59,  257,  258;   171-72,  59;   205, 
44;  248,  235;  287,  40,  42  (note 
7);   416,  244,  245    (note  83); 
449-50,    220,    250    (note    110); 
450  a,  221  (note  31);  451,  221 
(note   31);    50(5-07,    257;    510- 
1 1 ,  51 ;  512-13,  64,  65 ;  539-4 1 , 
257,  258;  5.52.13,  253;  .563,  62; 
739,  223  (note  37)  ;  740-41,  79 
(note  35); 
-Triimninnis,  v.  20-21,  250;  26-27, 
60;  45,  255  (note  106)  ;  8.1,  38, 
.56;  98,  75;  109-110,  243  (note 
80);     113,    220;     110-20,     78; 
141,  245    (note  84);    148,   75; 
152,  212;  194,  221;  347-48,  83 
(note);  349,  82;  .383,  43;  414- 
15,  82,  84   (note  39);   435-3(5, 
238;    46.5,    38;    474,    43;    48.5, 
38;  487,  (58  (note  23);  493-94, 
228;  507,  38;  516-17,  80;  .527, 
43;    .531-32,    7(5,    77;    5.38,    86 
(note    43);    557-58,    59;    566, 
62;  .59.3,  43;  600,  43;  607,  .38; 
679,  44;   697,   233    (note  57); 
748,     81;     750-51,     224     (note 
41);     763,    81;     774-75,    257; 
789-90,    222;    8,3,5,    621     (note 
15);  844,  212   (note  13);  884, 
40;  88.VCO;*70;  921;  7»^«:9i»0s. 
51,    262.  fjic^te.*);    &54-.'*5:  :2}5> 
213     (note  •  120V   558-.59,*  T§, 
212;  96;>.  4P;  ,96.5.-^0,.^]^.,  2J3,  . 
(note:  T^f;l  imS?,  :.83:,.^4;: 
1053-rj4: ;  8U», :  8V    ^natc  •.4f(i)*;: 
10,59-60,     92;      1081-82,     210; 
1085,  221;  L087.89,.8435;  ilOK*.    • 
245   (nJte  8^)5-Jl§ar-24/3.53^.*     ' 
11.39,    l5ia    (n#W    i^);-lk4,  *• 


[269] 


hider. 


245  (note  H2)  ;  1147,  lAT* 
(note  S.i);  115M,  212;  11H4, 
36;  llHo,  40,  67,  70;   1187,  S6; 

— TruculcntuH,  v.  H,  90;  6(5,  :JS ;  72, 
210;  S:?-.sr>,  20,S  (note)  ;  140, 
f)2;  20:t,  208;  234,  8.1;  287-S8, 
211,  22r>;  293,  24.1  (note  82); 
31;1,  42,  69,  70;  344  4.1,  224 
(note  38)  ;  .34(),  224  (note  38)  ; 
3;ir>,  244,  24.1  ( nntr  83);  391- 
i*2,  208;  4o:^-06,  247;  461  62, 
82;  527,  40,  69,  70;  .191,  2.33 
(note  57);  613,  :i8 ;  61.1,  .38, 
39;  661  (12,  249;  692  93,  77 
(note);  76«»,  91,  92  (not*'),  '•♦-» 
(iH.te  51);  815,  43;  826-27, 
246;  830,  52;  83.3,  38;  8.14,  38, 
68  (nt.te  23);  S77,  38,  67; 

— V'iWularia,  v.  56  57,  78,  80 
(note);  68,  77;    106,  44. 

f*oh'Htr:itos,  urrlion,  date  «»t',  157. 

Ho\i''^fws    — ovi'tci's,     priest    of    As 
klepios,  146. 

Posse  (|M)tis),  in  apotlosis,  .13. 

I'ratinas  of  Athens,  10. 

l*reseott,  H.  W.,  Snrn«'  IMiasi's  «»f 
the  Relation  of  Thouj^ht  to 
Verse  in    IMantus,  2(H-2(»2. 

Present  siihjunctive,  versus  future 
iiulieativ*',  87. 

Ptoleniais.  creation  of,   lis. 

I'toh'uiais,  jjiven  seeretaryshi[»  ir- 
rejjuhirly,   143. 

Pure  e«>n<litioiial  sentences,  50-66. 

Quid  si,  89. 

Kiehanlson,  fj.  J.,  Horace's  Ah-aic 
Strophe,  175-204. 

Sanskrit,  9.1. 

Sappho,  2,  9. 

Sapph«»,  tli^aniuia  in,  2. 

Schh'jji'l,  Frieilr.,  influence  on  lan- 
y;uaj;e  study,  95. 

Scien«'e  of  lanjjuajje,  95. 

Secretaries,  Atlu'iiian,  «h'nies  of, 
ehronoiojj:i<al  list,   131. 

Secretaries  t«»  th»'  Treasurv-boanl 
of  Athen.i,  145, 

Sera[>is,  priests  of,  139. 

Slu>«t  tfuantities,  at  .th'?  toutset  of 
I'orice's  elewn  syHahle  ami 
nine-syllable  Ah'aic  verses,  203. 

i!ji  (concessive).  37-42. 

Si-cl*\iKst>s,  i<70sely  attailnMl.  S5  8(t. 

Si  ol.j«M'r  c|ause;s,  75. 

Simonidea  of  Ceos,  9. 

Hephronistai^  ahalished,  166. 

ii^tesichorua.  of  UincTa,  10, 


T 
T 


Subjunctive    protasis,    with    indica- 
tive apodosis  in  Plautu.s,  50. 
Fanien  etsi,  46. 
Fainensi,  46. 
Painetsi,  44-45. 

Tcio-mj  Kc<^a\^^€»',  priest  of  As- 
klepios,  146. 

TcXco-tos  <p\v[€v%),  priest  of  As- 
klepios,  146. 

Telokles,  archon,  date  of,  152. 

Ten  syllable   Alcaic    (Horace),    1S9. 

Teren<e,  Adel|ihi,  v.  46,  259  (not*')  ; 
48,  239  (note  70);  52-53,  2.16 
(note  110)  ;  85,  257  (note)  ; 
229,  258  (note  114);  274-75, 
239;  657-58,  255  (note  1(^7); 
716-17,  255  (note  108);  761, 
42  (note  (>)  ;  891-92,  236; 

— Andria,  v.  .35,  239  (not*'  70);  77, 
258  (n*>te  114);  80-81,  245; 
6.39,  51;  6()7,  2.18  (n*.te  114); 
778-79,  2.16  (note  110)  ; 

— Kunuchus,  V.  88,  257  (note); 
108-09,  238;  1.15-56,  2.39  (note 
70)  ;  332,  2.19  (n*.te)  ;  .357,  224 
(n«.t*'  41);  524-25,  239;  532- 
33,  235.  236;  857,  220  (note 
30)  :    1032.  258   (not*'  114)  ; 

— Ib'auton  Tiinorurn*'n*>s,  v.  711-12, 
247  (note  87). 

Teren*-*',  H*'cyra,  v.  58.  258  ( n<»t<' 
114);  85-86,  226  (not*');  365- 
(»6,  2.16  (n*.te  110);  715,  51 
(not*'  3)  ; 

— Phorinio,  v.  312,  258  (note  114); 
447,  51  (note  3);  638,  259 
(note);  736-37,  51;  938,  221; 
940,  221. 

Terpan*ler,   10. 

Th*'rsilochos,  andiori,  date  ()f,  155. 

Boi'7^»'T7S,  priest  of  Asklepios,  149, 
169. 

'riinocr*M)n,  .34. 

Ti/lu>a:\^s  EtVeatos,  priest  of  As- 
klepios, 149,  169. 

Tiin«)th*'us,  9. 

TreasuH'rs  of  Athena,  secretaries 
of,  131. 

Trios,  an'h*)n,  date  of,  152. 

Wheeler,  B.  I.,  Tlie  Whem-e  an<l 
Whitiu'r  of  til*'  Modern  Sci«'nce 
of  Lanjjuaj^re,  95-109. 

WonI  analysis,   100. 

Z*'no.  death  *)f,  154. 

Zeus  Soter,  *hi{)lication  of  cult,  156, 

[ZwlfXos]  NiKo>c]p(iToi']0\u€iJ$,  priest 
(tf   Asklepi*>s,    1()8. 


[270] 


UNIVERSITY   OF  CALIFORNIA   PUBLICATIONS-(CONTfNUCO) 

ANTHROPOLOGICAL  MEMOIRS,     (auarto). 

Vol.  I.     Explorations  in  Peru,  by  Max  Uhle  (in  preparation). 
No.  1.    The  Ruins  of  Moche. 
No.  2.     Huamachuco,  Chincha,  lea. 
No.  3.    The  Inca  Buildings  of  the  Valley  of  Pisco. 

ASTROHOMY.-W.  W.  Campbell,  Editor.     (Lick  Observatory,  Mt.  Hamilton,  Cal.) 

Publications  o!  the  Lick  Observatory.— Volumes  I-V  completed.    Volume 

VI  (in  progress). 
No.  1.    A  Short  Method  of  Determining  Orbits  from  Three  Observations, 

by  A.  O.  Leuschner. 
No.  2.    Elements  of  Asteroid  1900  GA,  by  A.  O.  Leuschner  and  Adelaide 

M.  Hobe. 
No.  3.    Preliminary  Elements  of  Comet   1900  III,  by  R.  H.  Curtiss  and 

C.  G.  Dall. 
Contributions  from  the  Lick  Observatory.— Nos.  I-V. 
Lick  Observatory  Bulletins.— Volumes  I-III  completed.     Volume  IV  (in 

progress). 

BOTANY.— W.  A.  Setchell,  Editor.     Price  per  volume  $3.50.    Volume  I  (pp.  418) 

completed.    Volume  11  (in  progress). 

No.    8.    The  Resistance  of  Certain  Marine  Algae  to  Changes  in  Osmotic  ] 
Pressure  and  Temperature,  by  W.  J.  V.  Osterhout.  i 

No.    9.    The  Role  of  Osmotic  Pressure  in  Marine  Plants,  by  W.  J.  V.  t      " 

Osterhout.  \«^!!L 

) cover 

No.  10.    On   the    Importance   of   Physiologically  Balanced    Solutions   for  /price  * 

Plants,  by  W.  J.  V.  Osterhout.  I       .25 

No.  11.    The  Antitoxic  Action  of  Potassium  on  Magnesium,  by  W.  J.  V.  \ 

Osterhout.  / 

No.  12.    Cytological  Studies  in  Cyanophyceae,  by  Nathaniel  Lyon  Gardner. 

Price,     1.00 

No.  13.    On  a  small  Collection  of  Mosses  from  Alaska,  by  J.  Cardot  and 

T.  Theriot Price,      .10 

EDUCATION.— Edited  by  the  Department  of  Education.    Price  per  volume  $2.50. 

Volume  I  (pp.  424).    Notes  on  the  Development  of  a  Child,  by  Milicent  W. 

Shinn Price,    2.25 

Vol.  II  (in  progress). — No.  1.     Notes  on  Children's  Drawings,  by  Elmer  E. 

Brown  Price,       .50 

Vol,  III  (in progress). —No.   1.    Origin  of  American  State  Universities,  by 

Elmer  E.  Brown Price,       .50 

No.  2.    State  Aid  to  Secondary  Schools,  by  David 

Rhys  Jones Price,      .75 

ENGINEERING.— Edited  under  the  direction  of  the  Engineering  Departments. 

This  series  will  contain  contributions  from  the  Colleges  of 
Mechanics,  Mining,  and  Civil  Engineering.  Volume  I  in  progress. 
No.  1.  Bulletin  of  the  Department  of  Civil  Engineering.  I.— Moment 
Diagrams  and  Typical  Live  Loads,  by  Charles  Derleth,  Jr., 
Pages  1-9,  Plate  1.    January,  1907 Price,      .10 

GEOLOGY.— -Bulletin  of  the  Department  of  Geology.   Andrew  C.  Lawson,  Editor. 

Price  per  volume  $3.50.     Volumes  I  (pp.  428),  II  (pp.  450), 
III  (475)  and  IV  (462),  completed.    Volume  V  (in  progress). 

4.  New  Cestraciont  Teeth  from  the  West  American  Triassic,  by  Edna  M. 

Wemple Price,        .10 

5.  Preliminary  Note  on  a  New  Marine  Reptile  from  the  Middle  Triassic 

of  Nevada,  by  John  C.  Merriam Price,        .10 

6.  Lawsonite,  Columbite,  Beryl,  Barite,  and  Calcite,  by  Arthur  S.  Eakle. 

Pp.  81-94,  pi.  10.    January,  1907.  Price,        .10 

7.  The  Fossil  Fishes  of  California,  with  Supplementary  Notes  on  other 

Species  of  Extinct  Fishes,  by  David  Starr  Jordan.    Pp.  95-144, 

pis.  11-12.    April,  1907 Price,        .50 

8.  Fish  Remains  from  the  Marine  Lower  Triassic  of  Aspen  Ridge,  Idaho, 

by  Malcolm  Goddard.    Pp.  145-148,  June,  1907.  Price,        .05 


WN»VERSITY   or  CALIFORNIA   PUBLICATIONS- (CONTINUIDJ 


No.  5.    On  the  Autolysis  of  Protein,  by  Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor. 

No.  6.    On  the  Reversion  of  Tryptic  Digestion,  by  Alonzo  Englebert  Tiylor. 


PATHOLOGY. -Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor,   Editor.     Price  per  volume,  $2.50. 

volume  I  (pp.  347)  completed. 

In 

one 

cover 

w!'  I'    o^^li^^  "*"  an  Ash-Free  Diet,  by  Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor.    Price,  ^       Jo 
Nai    S"  ^S["^|"*«;^«";  by  Alonzo  Englebert  Tayb^^        .    \       Price       2  00 

Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor.  Price,        .05 

PHILOSOPHY.— Volume  I,  completed.    Price,  $2.00. 

PHYSIOLOOY.-Jacques  Loeb,  Editor.     Price  per  volume  $2.00.      Volume  I 

ifiii.ii  Vii?"'^'^^^^-     y*'^""'*^    "   <PP-  215)  completed. 
M        ^      ^      t-    Y.**^"'"e  III  (in  progress). 

No.    7.    On  *^«  Counteraction  of  the  Toxic  Effect  of  Hypertonic  Solutions 

?S??  the  Fertilized  and  Unfertilized  Egg  of  the  Sea-Urchin  by 

M^      o     /^    I-ack  of  Oxygen,  by  Jacques  Loeb.  ' 

No.    8.    On  the  Production  of  a  Fertilization  Membrane  in  the  Egg  of  the 

Sea-Urchin  with  the  Blood  of  Certain  Gephyrean  Worms  (a 

preliminary  note),  by  Jacques  Loeb 

"^-    ®*    ^<»te  on  the  Synthesis  of  Protein  through  the  Action  of  Pepsin,  by 

t  iL     li  *•  Brailsford  Robertson.  *^      *    ' 

J©ln  Bruce  iWacCallum :  On  the  Mechanism  of  the  Physiological  Action  of 

ine  i^atnartics p^..^^^  ^^^ 


ZOOLOGY. 


H^p    7. 

No,    w. 

No.  10. 

No.  ]  1 . 
No,  12. 

No.  13. 


""  a^*-rv  "^^w*^*'^o^"*^^  per  volume  $3.50.  Volumes  I  (pp. 
fll)  and  II  (pp.  382)  completed.  Volume  III  (in  progress). 
Commencing  with  Volume  II,  this  series  contains  Contributions 

c  '"nf.^^  ^at>oratory  of  the  Marine  Biological  Association  of 
oan  Dtego. 

Dinoflagellata  of  the  San  Diego  Region,  II.     On  Triposolenia, 
Pager24"pia?es  3^  Dmophysidae,  by  Charles  Atwood  Kofoid. 

^    rh^rifJT.  ""^  Ji^^PI'^'^S    Characters   in   Triposolenia,    by 
Charles  Atwood  Koford.     Pages  10. 

^°  rhLifi^ri^*^'*1'^t  of    the   Asymmetry    in    Triposolenia,   by 
Charles  Atwood  Kofoid;     Pages  7. 

*^'*^h»nLv^  ^H^  ^'o  ^*^«.^  'l^.^*^"-     II.-Littoral  Forms,  by)     '" 
Chancey  Juday.     Pages  22,  Pis.  3.  '     '^  i    one 

^^'t't^t-figure  f.'"  ^''"^''  '^'^•°"'  ^^  ^*"'"*^"y  ^"^«>-     P^g^^  ^Prke'' 


The  Marine  Fishes  of  Southern  California,  by  Edwin  Chapin  Starks 

and  Earl  Leonard  Morris.     Pages  93,  Plate  I  Prfoo 

Biological    Studies    on    Corymorp'ha.     'iL-ThV    Developme^rof 

Dinoflagellata  of  the  San  Diego  Region,  HI.  '  Description  o^nIw 
Species,  by  Charles  Atuood  Kofoid.  Pages  42,  Plates  12.    Priced 


.25 

.75 


.50 
.50 


UJPVBKSITY  CHEOmCLE.-An  official  record  of  Universitv  life,  issued  quarterlv 

foiui'i;jo.7x:"^'"'' '' ^'^ ''^"^^-  Price,  $i.oo%ryra?.'cS 

to  I^e'u^i^yrt;'^^^^^  — -g  the  above  publication. 


,^^ 


'  ^^"^ 


imiiiiin 

002597§086  ' 


BrcmEDONOT 
PHOTOCOPY 


t  xm 


11^- 


»^r 


— '  -i-.S ' 


'  '■•'    "■  K-, 


i 


A«<^ 


*^.s  .-ft. 


'»■" 


t"  fSr^ 


*#Ai- •!--■-. 


<  I 


[<«    .    i 


!*^/. 


,> :. . 


^■u  T 


-•£s;. 


„     f^r-^ 


»,.«*,,"!  V- 


i^S^j5C%| 


,if«,.: 


,    -s    <  J  .(i,-; 


i^^ilt.: 


